Rule Suggestion Disallow DC/AR/FO from using SCP-914 Disguises

[Sceptre]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Add a rule that disallows the use of SCP-914 Disguises by Deepcovers, Assessment Team and Field Operatives.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I do not believe so.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+ Searching for hostile personnel will be fairer and more balanced for players
+ Disguised hostiles will no longer be able to immediately hot-swap between 2 disguises of their choosing

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- It's a niche and specific rule which generally speaking are detrimental and annoying to have

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Deepcovers have had a recent tendency to be using SCP-914 to obtain a disguise of their choosing, whilst pairing this with their disguise cards to create an immediately hot-swappable disguise. This allows them to do an overtly hostile action and get called out for it and then immediately swap disguises to maintain their cover. This, furthermore, allows Deepcovers in essence to bypass the disguise card cooldown as they can swap to their other disguise temporarily and then obtain a new disguise on their card. Generally speaking, this should be re-added as a clarification as the old rules did state (which appears to have been removed?) that special classes such as Juggernaut could not use 914 (iirc?)

CI will immediately move to -support bomb this suggestion with no genuine feedback or reasoning. I'm happy to entertain any genuine discussion about this, however.

 

[Niox]

Oh yeah, as if your gonna go in d-block and get everyone there to seperate individually and kant check them all successfully. D-block is crowded and hard to co-ordinate. Besides, even if the DC gets close to being caught, they could just pin it on being a TB.

TB dont emit humes iirc. Also, who says a normal 914ed individual couldn't do this?

 

[Dusk]

914 should honestly just be reworked or removed.
It’s no longer used for its intended purpose, and it hasn’t seen meaningful updates to make it a positive part of the server. Its original implementation had great potential, and for a time, it actually added depth to gameplay.

But over time, with layer after layer of artificial restrictions placed on it, despite its relatively low impact, it’s lost all value. Now it’s mostly used for minging or turned into a glorified hide and seek gamemode. With the outlook on its usage marked as damage to facility integrity.
If it's not going to be supported or given purpose, it shouldn't keep taking up space, same with SCP-860 which hasn't seen a human in 2 years.

 

[Senkai]

-support

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

Oh yeah, as if your gonna go in d-block and get everyone there to seperate individually and kant check them all successfully. D-block is crowded and hard to co-ordinate. Besides, even if the DC gets close to being caught, they could just pin it on being a TB.

mfw foundation staff have to work as a team to find out who is an impersonator

 

[Emilia Foddg]

914 should honestly just be reworked or removed.
It’s no longer used for its intended purpose, and it hasn’t seen meaningful updates to make it a positive part of the server. Its original implementation had great potential, and for a time, it actually added depth to gameplay.

But over time, with layer after layer of artificial restrictions placed on it, despite its relatively low impact, it’s lost all value. Now it’s mostly used for minging or turned into a glorified hide and seek gamemode. With the outlook on its usage marked as damage to facility integrity.
If it's not going to be supported or given purpose, it shouldn't keep taking up space, same with SCP-860 which hasn't seen a human in 2 years.

I agree with reworks and changes for 914 and 860, but in the past year, myself and many others have put forward numerous changes to both that would make them more purposeful in and beneficial to the server in various different ways (each with their own caveats) but most of the time have been shot down.

It makes sense from the stance that you want to keep the already-astronomical backlog from growing larger than it is, but also doesn't make sense from the stance you've given of retaining the status quo and as such continuing the ongoing issues of keeping things as they are without change.

There's a lot of factors going into this, but I think the biggest is that there just aren't enough devs. If there were more devs willing to go through all the stuff needed to be done, then CT could afford to lower their standards and evaluate things with a lighter hand and more with the intent of potentially prototyping and trialling the more controversial ideas to gauge viability, rather than just making strict judgment calls and having to deny them outright for the sake of not bloating the already-bloated backlog. As things are, the methodology right now is correct, there's just a lack of people. Which means that the standards need to stay high. Which isn't really anyone's fault, it's just how things are right now. Something something call to action, something something apply for a dev position now.