Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Recommended Posts

How about a total toilet time per month limit? Once you’ve used up your toilet-minutes it wouldn’t let you in again until next month.

If it did this I’m sure they would want to install the system at work. Of course each time there was a productivity drive they’d cut your monthly limit.

Employees would be holding it as long as possible then peeing as fast as they can when they do go.

It would make for some interesting scenarios. For example what would you do if you had a moderate urge to pee but there was a two hour meeting coming up? Hold it and risk wetting yourself in the meeting or go anyway and use up some of your toilet minutes allowance?

Link to comment
On 7/10/2021 at 10:55 AM, WetDave said:

How about a total toilet time per month limit? Once you’ve used up your toilet-minutes it wouldn’t let you in again until next month.

If it did this I’m sure they would want to install the system at work. Of course each time there was a productivity drive they’d cut your monthly limit.

Employees would be holding it as long as possible then peeing as fast as they can when they do go.

It would make for some interesting scenarios. For example what would you do if you had a moderate urge to pee but there was a two hour meeting coming up? Hold it and risk wetting yourself in the meeting or go anyway and use up some of your toilet minutes allowance?

Love this addition! Very interesting idea for refining the system. 

Link to comment
On 7/18/2021 at 11:19 PM, badwetboy said:

Interview question: What kinds of discipline would you dish out if given that authority?

Any discipline would have to fall within the guidelines established during the creation of the Department of Restroom Regulation.   If an offense is harmful to others or the violator is a repeat offender then I envision enhancing the punishment. Below are some example scenarios. 

1)  Mr and Mrs Johnson are out for the evening when Mrs Johnson has an urgent need to urinate.  Mrs Johnson used all three of her permissions for the day and begs her husband to unlock a public restroom for her using his remaining permission; Mr Johnson reluctantly agrees.

The offense is caught on video and both plead guilty, both are first time offenders. The minimum punishment for both is a two week revocation of their toilet permits.

I would sentence Mr Johnson to the minimum sentence of a 2 week revocation of his permit since he comitted the offense at the instistance of his wiife. Since Mrs Johnson instigated the offense her sentence would be a 3 week revocation of her permit. 

2a) Mrs Anderson is caught urinating in public, there are no children present.   She is a first time offender. Her sentence would be a reduction to 2 permissions a day for one month. 

2b) During her month of limited permission, Mrs Anderson finds herself needing to urinate while shopping after work. She has already used both permissions and winds up wetting her pants. No additional punishment is administered by the Disciplinary Committee, wet pants are just part of the natural consequences of permit restriction. 

3) Miss Boyd is caught urinating in public, a school bus went by as she comitted her offense. Miss Boyd has a prior record for unlocking a restroom for a friend. The standard sentence would be a reduction in permission to 2 times per day for one month for the offense of public urination. As a repeat offender she is further restricted to one permission per day. Since children were present she will recieve a punishment enhancement; she is required to drink one gallon of water each morning during her month of permission reduction. 

Link to comment
On 7/24/2021 at 1:44 PM, Empeeror said:

I remember this! It was an alien civilization that took over and needed a particular amount of urine, so bathroom visits were restricted by ID

I love that story! It was called Planet of Desperation.

Link:

https://www.omorashi.org/topic/40218-planet-of-desperation/

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/23/2021 at 4:33 AM, Fuchsa9073 said:

Any discipline would have to fall within the guidelines established during the creation of the Department of Restroom Regulation.   If an offense is harmful to others or the violator is a repeat offender then I envision enhancing the punishment. Below are some example scenarios. 

1)  Mr and Mrs Johnson are out for the evening when Mrs Johnson has an urgent need to urinate.  Mrs Johnson used all three of her permissions for the day and begs her husband to unlock a public restroom for her using his remaining permission; Mr Johnson reluctantly agrees.

The offense is caught on video and both plead guilty, both are first time offenders. The minimum punishment for both is a two week revocation of their toilet permits.

I would sentence Mr Johnson to the minimum sentence of a 2 week revocation of his permit since he comitted the offense at the instistance of his wiife. Since Mrs Johnson instigated the offense her sentence would be a 3 week revocation of her permit. 

2a) Mrs Anderson is caught urinating in public, there are no children present.   She is a first time offender. Her sentence would be a reduction to 2 permissions a day for one month. 

2b) During her month of limited permission, Mrs Anderson finds herself needing to urinate while shopping after work. She has already used both permissions and winds up wetting her pants. No additional punishment is administered by the Disciplinary Committee, wet pants are just part of the natural consequences of permit restriction. 

3) Miss Boyd is caught urinating in public, a school bus went by as she comitted her offense. Miss Boyd has a prior record for unlocking a restroom for a friend. The standard sentence would be a reduction in permission to 2 times per day for one month for the offense of public urination. As a repeat offender she is further restricted to one permission per day. Since children were present she will recieve a punishment enhancement; she is required to drink one gallon of water each morning during her month of permission reduction. 

You’re hired 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Sorry to necro, but I love this setup so much! I would love to do some RPs in a setting like this.

Some additional thoughts:

  • Forced hydration should be a common sentence enhancement. However, a gallon of clear water in a single sitting is unsafe. I would instead propose 750mL of sports drink, Pedialyte, or other electrolyte beverage first thing in the morning, followed by an additional 750mL every time the offender wets themselves (or every two hours, whichever seems plausible).
  • As China Girl noted, this setting would result in a high demand for adult diapers. For diaper fetishists, of course, this is a feature. For me, it is not - I'm generally fond of forced pants-wetting. Accordingly, my version of the setting would include a one-week reduction of restroom permissions by 1 per day for any adult caught wearing a diaper (barring medical exemptions, of course), with an additional week added if the offender wears a diaper during their sentence. (If the offender already had no restroom permissions, add forced hydration to their sentence) High schools may have a similar "no diapers" dress code.
  • China Girl also noted that public urination would be much more of a problem in this world (particularly among men), and it would be infeasible to catch everyone. There's probably not much that could be done about ordinary citizens "whipping it out" when caught short, apart from making an example of the ones you do catch. But for people who are sentenced to reduced or eliminated restroom permissions, I do have a proposal.
    • Basically, the concept is "ankle bracelet for your pants". For people wearing trousers, you could use a "fly lock" that immobilizes the zipper and fastener of the trousers; for skirts or kilts, one could use lockable plastic pants. In either case, the underwear lock would release if the wearer successfully unlocks a restroom (assuming they still have some restroom permissions); these events would be flagged in the security feed, to allow increased scrutiny of the camera feeds to ensure the underwear lock is put back on.
    • Offenders would be issued a home unlocker for their underwear lock. This device would have GPS and a geofence to the offender's home. Should an offender be caught removing the unlocker from their home or otherwise compromising it, they would instead install an unlocker in the home restrooms, probably also introducing home restroom restrictions as well. 
  • Allowing people to change if they work in a place where human waste is a public health hazard is a sensible concession to reality. However, I think such people shouldn't get off entirely scot free. Accordingly:
    • In workplaces where employees may have a public-health changing exemption, any wet or soiled garments must be stored on-site, and the offending employee must put the garments back on before leaving the workplace.
    • Alternately, my above "no diapers" rule would be waived for people with a changing exemption - they would be allowed to wear diapers, but not change them (adding more diapers if the initial diapers are in danger of leaking).
  • While we're on the subject of concessions to reality, preventing people from changing wet pants would result in some pretty nasty diaper rash. Either some additional technology would have to be introduced to mitigate diaper rash, or denial of clothing changes would have to be replaced with some other penalty.
Link to comment
On 10/1/2021 at 8:02 PM, garador said:

Sorry to necro, but I love this setup so much! I would love to do some RPs in a setting like this.

Some additional thoughts:

  • Forced hydration should be a common sentence enhancement. However, a gallon of clear water in a single sitting is unsafe. I would instead propose 750mL of sports drink, Pedialyte, or other electrolyte beverage first thing in the morning, followed by an additional 750mL every time the offender wets themselves (or every two hours, whichever seems plausible).
  • As China Girl noted, this setting would result in a high demand for adult diapers. For diaper fetishists, of course, this is a feature. For me, it is not - I'm generally fond of forced pants-wetting. Accordingly, my version of the setting would include a one-week reduction of restroom permissions by 1 per day for any adult caught wearing a diaper (barring medical exemptions, of course), with an additional week added if the offender wears a diaper during their sentence. (If the offender already had no restroom permissions, add forced hydration to their sentence) High schools may have a similar "no diapers" dress code.
  • China Girl also noted that public urination would be much more of a problem in this world (particularly among men), and it would be infeasible to catch everyone. There's probably not much that could be done about ordinary citizens "whipping it out" when caught short, apart from making an example of the ones you do catch. But for people who are sentenced to reduced or eliminated restroom permissions, I do have a proposal.
    • Basically, the concept is "ankle bracelet for your pants". For people wearing trousers, you could use a "fly lock" that immobilizes the zipper and fastener of the trousers; for skirts or kilts, one could use lockable plastic pants. In either case, the underwear lock would release if the wearer successfully unlocks a restroom (assuming they still have some restroom permissions); these events would be flagged in the security feed, to allow increased scrutiny of the camera feeds to ensure the underwear lock is put back on.
    • Offenders would be issued a home unlocker for their underwear lock. This device would have GPS and a geofence to the offender's home. Should an offender be caught removing the unlocker from their home or otherwise compromising it, they would instead install an unlocker in the home restrooms, probably also introducing home restroom restrictions as well. 
  • Allowing people to change if they work in a place where human waste is a public health hazard is a sensible concession to reality. However, I think such people shouldn't get off entirely scot free. Accordingly:
    • In workplaces where employees may have a public-health changing exemption, any wet or soiled garments must be stored on-site, and the offending employee must put the garments back on before leaving the workplace.
    • Alternately, my above "no diapers" rule would be waived for people with a changing exemption - they would be allowed to wear diapers, but not change them (adding more diapers if the initial diapers are in danger of leaking).
  • While we're on the subject of concessions to reality, preventing people from changing wet pants would result in some pretty nasty diaper rash. Either some additional technology would have to be introduced to mitigate diaper rash, or denial of clothing changes would have to be replaced with some other penalty.

I love all of these ideas! Very thorough and sensible. Such refinements would help the Department of Restroom Regulation to enforce proper conduct. 
 

(And if you want to rp just hmu!)

Link to comment

This feels like the Big Brother that sees everything in 1984 by George Orwell, anyway there might be some improvement like people with medical exceptions might as well have 10 permissions per day, then i'll give different restrictioj based on the age, like 12 years old or younger have weaker bladders, resulting in more accidents, especially bedwetting so maybe a 4th permission per day is required, then over 60/65+ may have some "idraulic" problems, so even if they are technically fine, again a 4th permission for them would be nice, and maybe a 5th for 80+. For all the other no complains about 3 permits (even if means that i'm in danger to wet myself every day) 🙂

Link to comment

@garador has some really good suggestions for this, but I got some other things I would suggest as well:

  • One of the common uses for public restrooms is to relieve one's sexual tension. This is unprofessionalism to the fullest extent and will result in 1 year in chasity and a revocation of all permit permissions for 3 months
  • Physically damaging and destroying any Restroom Regulation and Toilet Permit systems will result in a full-building lockdown with local law enforcement response (although this would be hard as all doors are to be metal-reinforced).
  • Diapers, catheters, and anything that will help someone avoid using their permissions are strictly regulated with the following rules:
    • If a person wants to keep their permissions to use the restroom, they must need a doctor's statement that they are prescribed said items 
    • If a statement cannot be found, one can still get these items by waving their permissions for two weeks for every purchase
    • A waiting period of two weeks will be put on any unlicensed purchase on the above items.
    • Using another's statement to buy items will result in the same punishment as being in possession of another's permit. 
    • If a person is caught wearing one of these above items without having a doctor's statement, all toilet permissions including on private property are to be revoked until the next time they are seen without wearing them, plus one week.
    • These consequences aren't final and may increase if we see an spike of people using diapers
  • Cameras are to be installed on all sites using this system. Wanted criminals and any crimes and rule violations in the vicinity of the system are to be monitored and punished according to the rule book. Camera stations will be built to monitor these systems and to identify violators to the DoRR as soon as possible.
  • If any point the Department of Restroom Regulation goes down, or has a failure in it's system, all doors will be locked, and the scanner will be unavailable due to technical limitations (that we did not fix on purpose).

Although we gotta reward the ones who make others wet themselves and "contribute" to the DoRR. You get a free permission for doing any of these things:

  • Help someone else cause an accident
  • Catch an unlicensed diaper user
  • Catching someone who invites another to the restroom
  • Anyone who reports a lawbreaker to the police

 

Link to comment
On 10/6/2021 at 7:43 AM, Mystic007 said:

This feels like the Big Brother that sees everything in 1984 by George Orwell, anyway there might be some improvement like people with medical exceptions might as well have 10 permissions per day, then i'll give different restrictioj based on the age, like 12 years old or younger have weaker bladders, resulting in more accidents, especially bedwetting so maybe a 4th permission per day is required, then over 60/65+ may have some "idraulic" problems, so even if they are technically fine, again a 4th permission for them would be nice, and maybe a 5th for 80+. For all the other no complains about 3 permits (even if means that i'm in danger to wet myself every day) 🙂

It's definitely a very dystopian scenario - the Department of Restroom Regulation is being allowed to control a very intimate and embarrassing need - frequently to the point of forcing people to disgrace themselves - and there are security cameras monitoring the exercise of that need.

As for you being in danger of accidents at the 3-permit-per-day level, remember that this scenario only restricts use of public restrooms, including workplace restrooms. Control over home bathroom use is only for penal purposes, and usually for extreme sentences. It could be interesting to add home bathroom restrictions as well (although that would be right at the 1984 level); if so, additional permissions would have to be allocated, probably another 3 per day.

Certainly the very young and very old should be allowed more permissions - in a way, they have an intrinsic medical exemption. And they would also qualify for diapers, even in my preferred "diapers aren't allowed" scenario. I'd delineate it as follows:

  • 0-4 years: No legal restrictions - parents have full authority over potty training. (Speaking of which, changing rooms would be separate from restrooms - parents should be able to change their small children as needed regardless of whether they themselves are allowed to relieve themselves or change.)
  • 5-8 years: Five permissions per day during school hours. Diapers are allowed with parental permission.
  • 9-12 years: Four permissions per day. Diapers are not allowed without a medical exemption.
  • 13-64 years: Three permissions per day.
  • 65-79 years: Four permissions per day.
  • 80+ years: Five permissions per day. Diapers are allowed.
Link to comment

It occurs to me that the Department of Restroom Regulation could also be concerned with bathroom accidents, instead of merely considering them "unprofessional behavior"; as well as restrictions on changing of clothes.

Some thoughts (and holy baloney, I sure did generate a wall of text here...):

  • In addition to "restroom permissions", add "cleanup permissions".
    Although people are generally expected to keep their underwear clean, the Department of Restroom Regulation understands that unfortunate circumstances can happen. Accordingly, some public restrooms include a shower stall as well as toilet stalls. Such restrooms have a separate lock for the toilets and the showers; unlocking the shower stall deducts a cleanup permission rather than a toilet permission.

    By default, all citizens have one (1) cleanup permission per day. Citizens ages 9-12 and 65-79 have two cleanup permissions, and citizens 8 and under or 80 and over have unlimited cleanup permissions.

    Public showers may be used solely to clean any body parts soiled by an accident, rinse underwear and clothing, and to change into clean clothing. It is an offense to urinate or defecate in a public shower, punishable by deprivation of all toilet and cleanup permissions for two weeks. Public showers have security cameras to enforce these rules; the lack of privacy in public showers serves as an encouragement to citizens not to have an accident in the first place, and citizens who do have an accident must weigh the embarrassment of being seen naked by DoRR officers against the discomfort of wet or soiled clothing.

    Citizens who work in fields where bodily waste is a health hazard may unlock a shower stall at their place of employment at any time, even if they have no cleanup permissions remaining. However, they may only rinse or clean their underwear if they have a cleanup permission. If the employee unlocks the shower stall and has no cleanup permissions, a locker opens containing a diaper. The employee must take the diaper, remove all wet or soiled underwear, and place it in the locker before the shower stall will open; the employee must put on the diaper upon leaving and wear it for the remainder of their work day. At the end of the work day, any public-health employee who used a locker must return to the shower stall, dispose of their diaper, unlock the locker with their ID, and change back into their dirty clothing before leaving the work site. Wearing a public diaper outside the work site results in a loss of all toilet and cleanup permissions for two weeks, and a requirement to wear a diaper over their normal underwear at the work site for the duration of the sentence.

    Not all restrooms have attached showers. Generally, about one out of every three restrooms has a shower. Malls will typically have a shower at the food court (for the convenience of restaurant employees, who have a public-health exemption); offices will typically have one shower per 120 employees. Employers smaller than 100 employees, except for public-health businesses are not required to supply a public shower. Major chain restaurants are required to supply a shower for employee use only; small restaurants must either be within one city block of a public shower and allow employees who have accidents to use it, or require all employees to wear diapers.

    Citizens who are serving a sentence depriving them of all toilet permissions normally gain one extra cleanup permission per day. This may, of course, also be removed as part of a sentence.
     
  • Punishment for accidents.
    The DoRR issues no punishment, as such, for a citizen who urinates or defecates in their clothing when they have no toilet permissions at the time of the accident. The shame and discomfort of wetting or soiling oneself, and having to use up a cleanup permission, is considered sufficient punishment in and of itself.

    However, it is an offense for a citizen to have an accident when they do have toilet permissions remaining, as it represents the citizen's failure to use the restroom in the proper manner. A citizen who has an accident with toilet permissions remaining loses all toilet and cleanup permissions for the rest of that day, and for a two-week period loses however many toilet permissions they still had at the time of the accident.

    Examples:
    Ms. Johnson is attempting to save her last toilet permission of the day to defecate. However, before she is able to do this, she needs to urinate again after using up two of her toilet permissions and ends up wetting herself. She loses her remaining toilet permission and her cleanup permission for that day (and, consequently, ends up messing herself after all), and is not allowed to clean up during the work day. For the following two weeks, she is restricted to two toilet permissions per day, as she had one toilet permission when she wet herself.

    Mr. Davis has only used one of his three toilet permissions remaining for the day, but drinks too much coffee before a long meeting and wets himself during the meeting. He loses all toilet and cleanup permissions for the rest of the day. For the following two weeks, he is restricted to one toilet permission per day, as he had two toilet permissions when he wet himself.
     
  • Forced hydration.
    Repeat offenders of various DoRR regulations, or offenses committed under special circumstances (e.g. public urination in the presence of children) may have their sentence enhanced with forced hydration. An offender under forced hydration must consume at least 750mL of fluid each day for every count of forced hydration. The first drink must always be taken first thing in the morning; other drinks may be taken at the offender's discretion.

    For health and safety reasons, offenders may not be sentenced to more than four counts of forced hydration, and may not be required to consume more than 750mL of fluid per hour. Offenders on forced hydration are counseled to drink beverages with electrolytes for their sentence.

    Citizens under the age of 12 or over the age of 64 may not be sentenced to forced hydration.
     
  • Underwear regulations (non-ABDL).
    Adult citizens and older minors are expected to be toilet trained, and accordingly are expected to not require underwear intended to prevent against incontinence. Unless otherwise provided (e.g. medical or public-health exemption), it is an offense for an adult to wear a diaper in a public place, with removal of all toilet permissions for two weeks for the first offense.

    Sufficiently many diaper offenses may result in the offender being sentenced to diapers for up to a year. An offender under mandatory diapering loses all toilet and cleanup permissions, and are subjected to up to four counts of forced hydration. They are required to wear a diaper for the duration of their sentence, and may not wear any clothing that completely covers the diaper in a public place.
     
  • Home sentences.
    Under extreme circumstances (such as egregious restroom offenses or attempts to defeat DoRR regulatory equipment), but where the offender is not deemed to require confinement in a DoRR correctional facility, offenders may be sentenced to restrictions on toilet use at home. All restrooms in the offender's home will be fitted with DoRR locks and security cameras on both the outside and the inside. Offenders under home restroom restriction have a baseline four additional toilet permissions and two additional cleanup permissions, although the typical home restroom sentence usually will remove some of these.

    Residents of a home with DoRR locks who are not under home restroom restriction may use their ID cards to open the restroom an unlimited number of times. As per usual, a non-restricted resident who uses their ID to permit access to a restricted resident will be sentenced to two weeks loss of all toilet permissions (including home use, in this case), and the restricted resident's sentence will be increased.

    If a restricted resident is found to have coerced a non-restricted resident into allowing access with their ID, the remainder of the restricted resident's sentence will be served in a DoRR correctional facility, with additional punishment for the coerced access.

    Offenders under home restroom restriction must be allowed at least one daily cleanup permission. If an offense would otherwise remove that permission, the sentence will instead require confinement in a DoRR correctional facility.
     
  • Department of Restroom Regulation correctional facilities (potty prison).
    Severe offenders of DoRR regulations, especially offenders who commit further offenses while under home restrictions, may be sentenced to confinement in a DoRR correctional facility. Work release (allowing the offender to maintain a normal job and report to the prison outside of work hours) is typical, although abuse of that privilege may result in full-time confinement. Inmates in a DoRR facility have their restroom access, cleanups, and hydration monitored by correctional officers, making it much easier to ensure that the inmate does not commit further DoRR offenses.

    A typical part of a DoRR prison sentence is mandatory accidents. An inmate may be sentenced to one or more mandatory wettings per day, and one or more mandatory soilings per week. If an inmate fails to wet themselves the required number of times in a day, they lose all toilet permissions for the next day; if they fail to soil themselves the required number of times in a week, they lose all toilet permissions for the next week.

    Cleanup permissions may only be used at fixed times of day - fifteen minutes before each meal, and fifteen minutes before lights-out.

    Inmates must ask permission from a guard to relieve themselves, stating whether they need to urinate, defecate, or both; if the inmate has used up all their toilet permissions for the day, they must ask to have an accident. If an inmate has not yet had all of their mandatory accidents, the guard may respond to a request to use the toilet by requiring the inmate to have an accident instead. If an inmate has an accident without a guard's permission, they lose all toilet permissions the next day and the accident does not count toward their mandatory accidents.

    Inmates are typically not allowed to wear diapers, except on work release to public-health exempted employment.
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
On 10/13/2021 at 7:16 PM, garador said:

Punishment for accidents.
The DoRR issues no punishment, as such, for a citizen who urinates or defecates in their clothing when they have no toilet permissions at the time of the accident. The shame and discomfort of wetting or soiling oneself, and having to use up a cleanup permission, is considered sufficient punishment in and of itself.

However, it is an offense for a citizen to have an accident when they do have toilet permissions remaining, as it represents the citizen's failure to use the restroom in the proper manner. A citizen who has an accident with toilet permissions remaining loses all toilet and cleanup permissions for the rest of that day, and for a two-week period loses however many toilet permissions they still had at the time of the accident.

I enjoyed reading the suggested amendments, particularly punishing accidents when the citizen hasn't used all their permissions for the day.   The plan is very well thought out!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...