Rule Suggestion CI limitations during low pop [US]

[John Schnatter]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Some form of limits to CI operations within the site during low-pop hours. I recently endured a 5-hour on-and-off raid of disguised D-class and CI nearly taking over the entire site, killing people who are making chems in a secluded area, kidnapping the same people 3+ times in a row within a 2-3 hour window, and holding people for over an hour.

I suggest either a rule limiting operations to once every [SUM OF REASONABLE TIME when BELOW CERTAIN PLAYER COUNT] or making hostile frontal assault raids on site not allowed under a certain PLAYER COUNT instead of the ridiculous rule I heard when discussing this issue of "4+ mtf units = raidable" (esspecially since apparently, they can flag on mtf units, take a picture of that, and then flag back onto ci and use that picture as proof there are enough mtf to raid?), as this rule does not take into account the amount of CI that can raid. The current setup allows a disproportionate amount of CI to enter the site, like what we had today with 10+ CI sitting in medbay, completely oppressing site personnel, while there were maybe 10 combatives in total, some of whom we were spending their time decorating checkpoint charlie.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I could find within recent threads. Please let me know if I am incorrect.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Server health in the low-pop and even medium-pop environment

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Complaints from CI members who regularly play low-pop hours.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Yes. I just watched an extremely dedicated consultant rage quit from the server after being kidnapped 2-3 times within the same raid and dying when someone attempted to kidnap him again while holding a fresh batch of expensive and rare chemicals. Not because he was armed or defending himself, but because a d class who had teamed with the CI felt a little trigger happy and decided to shoot the consultant for fun.

Allowing this to happen regularly is not good for server health.

 

[Holland]

Yes it is. Hes also one of our consultants named 'Insanity' Calhoun. And while yes, he may have been showing a bias towards CI, creating a player report will do nothing to solve this issue, and honestly, none of the bias is against the rules as far as I know.

Biased decision staff-wise are against our policy. section 1 : basic policies

Either way, please stop slandering someone's name if you can't provide concrete proof and aint willing to make a complaint.

This will be the last warning. Continue, and proper action will be taken, thanks

keep it civil it's a discussion, not an argument or who to blame simulator.

 

[Henrii]

And the foundations job is to secure contain and protect. Do you really think it makes sense that their containment specialists, e-11, who own HCZ, would all disappear off site? As well as most of the other MTF units? Leaving site-65, one of the most dangerous sites in the world left guarded by LESS than a skeleton crew? CI raiding with an army on low pop doesn't "generate activity". It generates frustration. Every combative involved that I spoke to about what happened was not happy with the situation.

Mb I lied about the no autobreaching during low pop part

there is currently a suggestion for review about removing autobreach during low pop, but autobreaches do still occur during low pop as of currently

 

[John Schnatter]

I agree with the post overall - and I hate to say this because it is truly wack - but MTF should just flag off?

If there isn't 4 MTF flagged on then CI cannot raid, I understand wanting to play your main role and a ruling should be put in place to stop massively low pop raids like this but if an MTF doesn't feel able to combat against the CI force then flagging off said MTF job is completely reasonable to do.

CI are getting on in such large numbers at night that they will flag on 4 MTF and still have enough numbers to raid. They will then flag off MTF mid raid and continue the raid for hours. That and most of the non-ci people who flag on MTF will flag on for 5 minutes before realizing the situation and get off the server entirely.

Biased decision staff-wise are against our policy. section 1 : basic policies

Either way, please stop slandering someone's name if you can't provide concrete proof and aint willing to make a complaint.

This will be the last warning. Continue, and proper action will be taken, thanks

keep it civil it's a discussion, not an argument or who to blame simulator.

Sorry but I think you replied to the wrong post. I'm not slandering anyone, have stayed completely out of any arguments and never claimed to have proof of any real bias. I said what he was doing, while I don't entirely agree with it, was well within the rules. It was meant to shut that discussion down not perpetuate it through arguing. He wasn't making decisions in CIs favor or anything serious like that. It honestly could boil down to poor timing for all I know. Calhoun was acting well within his duties as a mod. It's just a product of the much larger issue.