Rule Suggestion Rule Addition- No Major Gameplay Changes without SL+ Approval

[Vizoplez]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Rule Suggestion, specifically for the addition of SL Authorisation for major gameplay changes by faction/departmental leads.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Y/N. Many suggestions about individual rulings and specific individuals have been made.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+Better Regulation of potentially disruptive changes, smoother gameplay-RP transition
+Accountability for one's mistakes.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-SL being no fun.
-SSL being no fun.
-NL being no fun.

As a serious negative, this can be a genuine problem where staff over-reach can quickly become a problem, and should be heavily watched for misuse.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Read the thread, make your own decision. This got heated.


UNFORMATTED -

This might be confusing at first; but hear me out. As of late, a large majority of CL4/CL5 positions on SCPRP UK have authorised major policy changes that have massively decreased the viability of playing specific sample-related SCPs; and pretty much entirely killed off D-class gameplay - though that's also in part due to an SL change.

e.g; Nowadays? We can't sample SCPs without a document (ANY SCP, INCLUDING CL1s) which- while it may sound good that we're increasing the 'roleplay level' of the server - it has done far more damage to the overall gameplay loop than it has benefitted, in my opinion.

Yes, CL5/4 exist as Leadership positions, yes, they should have some power over their respective faction;

But it's a problem where now outside of events, specific SCPs like 860-2, and SCP-939 are pretty much entirely untested. Like, I'm gonna be for real

Over the course of 4 days, I played SCP-939 for a total of 39 hours.
I was sampled once.
I was fed d-class twice.

This averages a test rate of less than one per day. What the fuck?

How are SCP players supposed to enjoy the game other than breaching now? There's no reason to play SCPs other than safe-classes or 912/457 as they can either very easily grind EXP or are close enough to LCZ/other areas to go on mass killsprees before being gunned down violently.

So; here's the suggestion for a rule

1. Members of a Faction's Command, while they have a large portion of authority, may not make unilaterally gameplay-altering decisions that would majorly affect multiple aspects of the gameplay loop, without first contacting a member of Server Leadership and discussing an implementation plan, the benefits, and the negatives.

As for why it is needed- on UK, guess what.

The people who implemented this weren't even CL5.

They were the CL4 ISD Director and RSD Directors.

It's pretty strange to me how this was allowed through in the first place but w/e

 

[Vizoplez]

Yeah and I was also using the change you used as an example.
We cant talk to everyone who would be affected by a change because that would just be ineffective. Representatives are spoken to from departments affected, such as the research leadership if there was a change to sampling. SA are always spoken to, as well as Ethics. If it is a general policy change such as the recent one with the blast doors, that does not need to be discussed with any department outside of SA besides E-11 and ISD, but even if they weren't spoken to, I haven't seen either complain about it.

SL intervention into changes that can easily be done without it is just unneeded.

You can do regular tests without needing approval. Its just sampling that needs a signed document. You don't have to sit around when you could be doing other things instead. If not you can go to SA.

If a major change is made, SL will say something if it's decided they need to, otherwise the change will stand. No point forcing them to do something that is either already done or not needed.

This is true, and yeah. It's a huge logistical nightmare to poll community feedback but at the end of the day, while understandable, that's also not what I was trying to lean towards.

Staff have a pretty good experience with how the playerbase feels (atleast here from my opinion) with these sorts of changes. Again; its less so intervention, it's the equivalent of them stamping off a protected CL5 document change. More workload for them (sadly) but it atleast means we can hold people accountable in the future.


"that does not need to be discussed with any department outside of SA besides E-11 and ISD, but even if they weren't spoken to, I haven't seen either complain about it"

Are we perhaps referring to the "keep secondary closed" policy? If so; good example of peak "policy" (read: OOC) decisions made to specifically reduce the chances of a successful deepcover/AR/breach?

Yeah, makes sense IC, but like. Why? Didn't we rule preparing for breaches ahead of time metagaming? Aren't we supposed to treat that shit as if it's rare IC? Are we going to just pertinently ignore the fact that keeping teslas on all day was also made a huge nono?

Iunno man. The entire point of all of this is just so if someone does do something that absoluterly craters the server playability, we can turn around and go "well this SL member approved it, so kill them."

Like we should have done with Foxatron.

 

[Cade Valentine]

Like we should have done with Foxatron.

I was genuinely going to reply to your accusation that somehow RP has gotten worse since 2024 (insane btw, I know I'm -1 so I have to back this but I truly believe you're wrong on that) but then I notice you've somehow brought up Foxatron twice as a negative in one suggestion so now I'm just going to act like the whole point of this suggestion was to flame him and laugh

 

[Kevin Ki]

Okay as funny as this entire suggestion is, on a real note right:

"Sampling is restricted so no-one ever tests on me anymore" Lemme say this as loud as possible for you:

GOOD.

Okay, let's see where this goes.

I have never made it a secret that I utterly DETEST sampling in its entirety as it's the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality roleplay

If you just do it for chems it can be, but it's meant for GAMEPLAY, because the GAMEPLAY on this videoGAME server is very bare bones, being one of the few GAMEPLAY things you can do. It honestly is a problem you can't do alot of RP without either
A. Writing a essay [Not RP, if it was then school children are roleplaying.] (You also have to hope these people are on 24/7)
B. Begging a GM to let you
I think it is okay to limit it within reason. Lets see what your reason is.

and RSD can and have done better

Okay... so RSD with the freedom to do RP did it, so you limited it?

, and they have my full backing in doing so.

Apparently not you limited their gameplay to be bureaucratic relying on other people who probably don't care to interact with a basic gameplay aspect you're limiting.

The gameplay changes we make are because we as CL4/CL5 act as the bridge between the playerbase and staff.

Okay but if he felt the need to say this/bring this to the suggestion forums that means a few things.
1. Current CL4/5 aren't representing the player base to staff properly they feel the need to vocalize it in a direct way to staff.
2. Current decisions do not represent a portion of the player base
3. Current SA/SC is not making themselves available to communicate with the player base enough IC/OOC.
I'd work on this a bit.

Complaints raise up, we discuss them, propose solutions and if they could work, they are implemented.

I would make this system more open to the view of the players to show anything is happening. If people don't see it being done, it wasn't done. If you were to explain your reasoning it would open the players to discussing their POV, vs only discussing your own. This could be a good RP material as you could even just "record" it or "Broadcast" the discussion on a radio channel.

God forbid we actually use the time we have on the server to try and IMPROVE the quality of it instead of allowing slop like you're suggesting to continue. That'd be uncalled for!

See you being offensive like this in a position of power, name calling, and just being overall unapproachable, makes you a bad CL4/5. You aren't "above" anyone. You are player just like me or the other guy. But for some reason I get the feeling that if you are so willing and open to talk down and insult others HERE where anyone can see it, makes me think you do the same in-game and make people feel bad after speaking to you.

Do better.



I think this suggestion is wrong in that we need more staff involvment in RP and decisions, but has potential. I think if a decision is overall disagreed with by the playerbase there should be a voting system to allow the decision to be overruled or removed by O5, ECM, and if they choose not to, Staff.
I want players to have control, but shitty people in positions of power who just sit in it for months with some of the most gameplay braking rules has become a reoccurring problem, with no solution other than rule pointing till they're banned or removed.

 

[Vizoplez]

And why is that bad? Like honest question?

Why in this case of making sampling require documentation (which has been a thing for a while) a bad thing?

To me it isn't a bad thing and is actually a good thing, it used to be that the majority of D-Class tests (as a D-Class main) were spending 30 minutes sampling with little to no RP, where even if I tried to speak or interact with the SCP and researcher they would barely interact back. Now most tests I see are either interesting ones, ones that are fine RP with boring sampling being lesser.

Why do you think it was for "shits and giggles"?

Again, to me, this isn't what happened. The big ones saw an issue and attempted to fix it - this wasn't for "shits and giggles" but a direct attempt to improve the server.

1- Sampling is the entire reason 860-2 is even played these days. It has no other purpose than to be sampled, and that means that despite it being a LCZ Low-Sec Anomaly, it is basically never interacted with (model/server bloat my beloved)
2- Sampling was the entire real reason 939 was interacted with prior to this (amnesium), which has since been replaced partly by other systems. Making 939 incredibly outdated and tacky to play as again, I mentioned this briefly, you're basically a D-class scout that gets unleashed every 2 hours with an M9k sword and 20k hp.
3- Surface Anomalies. MTF Units are actually encouraged to let GOC/etc capture SCPs as, guess what. Sampling surface anomalies also requires... a test document... which is probably not going to get approved within the 30 maximum minutes you can keep an SCP cuffed.
4- Getting into the server. I mentioned it priorly, but some of the easiest ways to gain EXP/money and actually get a foot in the door to research was sampling, everyone was doing it. Partly why back in ye olden days "Unauthorised Sampling" was in the FLC; sampling as any other role than research. The removal of this has axed off a pretty major way that isn't just spam sacrificing d-class to the lethal cognitohazards in LCZ Inanimate (why the hell does literally EVERY SCP there have a 1/4 chance to instakill you if you're a regular d-class smh).

It overall decreases the flexibility of earlier SCPs and gameplay. Again; this is an example of one specific change that was pushed, but had wide-reaching ramifications.

5- Reintroducing 'Pay to Sample'. Guess what? It's back on UK. Again. I'm not going to go into specifics as this WILL devolve into an absolute shitfest if I bring up external GOI relations and sampling agreements, it's way too complex to cover and tbh I do not know all of the details, but thankfully it's warfunds this time.
6- Overreach. Yeah. I'll be real, this sampling document requirement? Absolutely understandable with more dangerous SCPs. Which.. is how how it was. I don't think anyone would have minded this specific change (myself included) if you didn't cap off entirely harmless and otherwise friendly SCPs from sampling tests. Keep in mind, this also came about around the same time as global SCP sampling limits that are mechanically enforced. It's been pretty clear that yes, sampling tests are usually slop, but there were other ways around it that were being persued. Going nuclear like this isn't going to be good for anyone.


As for why I think it was for shits and giggles, because none of this was like, properly communicated at all? It was just kinda dropped into everyones laps without explanations and/or recommendations. It's not a personal issue for me since I grinded my research levels way back in prep for changes like this but like

W/E mang...

 

[Vizoplez]

I was genuinely going to reply to your accusation that somehow RP has gotten worse since 2024 (insane btw, I know I'm -1 so I have to back this but I truly believe you're wrong on that) but then I notice you've somehow brought up Foxatron twice as a negative in one suggestion so now I'm just going to act like the whole point of this suggestion was to flame him and laugh

Not incorrect, Foxatron getting away with 90% of the shit he pulled in ECM ticks me the hell off specifically because this rule would have prevented him from doing 90% of this shit without having to self-stamp his SL authority and then would have eaten a demotion as a result.

but also still missing the point. I bring him up because of how damaging Foxatron was and how much of a headache he was to deal with at that time, specifically because he was not only a member of CL5, but a member of SL.

Keep in mind Nu7 relations pretty much never went back to normal until pretty much the entire regiment was replaced, along with all of it's leadership by the passage of time. That's how much damage one person in these roles can do; It's not about individual users or cases - this is about preparing for the inevitability someone is going to screw the pooch way worse than before - and NOT wanting to be caught out unprepared.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I think every single one of you is missing a very important point - This basically fucks over breaching SCPs that are unable to break BDs, such as 049 solo breaches for example. For that reasoning, I can see this being considered a form of mechanic abuse similar to how E-11 are adopting the strategy of leaving 096 tied up in stairwell.

However, just barring off everything by adding more rules against things tends to limit players more than it does free them, so instead I think that issues like the specific thing I just raised should be solved with a content change (as I suggested similarly for the other example issue) - Since US basically already does this with BDs anyway, I would agree with something like a delaying of this change (accompanied by a temporary lifting of the equivalent on US) until the issues this poses to breach gameplay are solved (ideally in a way that retains RP changes, without massively neutering specific breaches, more like just making them more difficult).

As for the primary debate here, I can see this both ways. I disagree heavily with the requirements imposed on testing and increasing restrictions in order to do so, but I see the need for improving the standard of RP. I disagree that the chosen approach is a healthy way of doing so, but I appreciate that it's not easy to determine a functioning solution. I ultimately believe that the final mentality that has been settled on, on both servers, seems slightly too restrictive for what this all fundamentally is and may not be conducive to new players joining either server and learning how it works.

Also, the format is not optional regardless of suggestion type and this will likely be denied out of the gate for not following it.

TL;DR - Everyone here is wrong, no-one wins hooray

Soft -Support

 

[Cade Valentine]

Not incorrect, Foxatron getting away with 90% of the shit he pulled in ECM ticks me the hell off specifically because this rule would have prevented him from doing 90% of this shit without having to self-stamp his SL authority and then would have eaten a demotion as a result.

but also still missing the point. I bring him up because of how damaging Foxatron was and how much of a headache he was to deal with at that time, specifically because he was not only a member of CL5, but a member of SL.

Keep in mind Nu7 relations pretty much never went back to normal until pretty much the entire regiment was replaced, along with all of it's leadership by the passage of time. That's how much damage one person in these roles can do; It's not about individual users or cases - this is about preparing for the inevitability someone is going to screw the pooch way worse than before - and NOT wanting to be caught out unprepared.

...Then if your problem was with that sort of behaviour, why are you making this kind of suggestion only now?

I ask this genuinely. Getting serious about your suggestion and ignoring...whatever is above your last reply (jesus christ some people are on one today) you're wrong about RSD. No test except major CL4+ and sampling actually requires a document for you to do. It requires the appropriate personnel, yes, but if you want to go to an SCP with an idea in mind and you've discussed it, that is allowed. Documentation is a formality for further reward, which should not be directly tied to the quality of your roleplay experience.

Several departments have further worked on cross-departmental initiatives to get them working together more, I can assure you that my time overseeing A-1 has been all about increasing approachability and their willingness to include non-reg members in their roleplay. SA has received significant empowerment in their additional content perms on the server (they never used to have access to ERT calling for example) and the location of the warfunds update, specifically because I hammered to SSL that they needed more to do than be our penpushers, cause that sucks.

Now that I read THIS reply in the context of your original suggestion, I'm almost confused...? It feels like this is pent up frustration due to what you experienced with Fox (don't get me wrong, I saw a lot of that shite, I don't disagree with you) and you're choosing now and the existing rp environment, which is NOTHING like how it was around that time, as an outlet for that frustration.

I can assure you, if you investigate further, initiatives have been founded to make sure people can do more with as much interactivity as possible. I despise excessive bureaucracy and I've done several de-layering attempts for various things where possible, i.e 008 now going down to SA for some auth, approving RSD removing documents as a requirement to test. I will only continue to be strict on samples because of their poison to the gameplay loop.

 

[Vizoplez]

Okay, let's see where this goes.

If you just do it for chems it can be, but it's meant for GAMEPLAY, because the GAMEPLAY on this videoGAME server is very bare bones, being one of the few GAMEPLAY things you can do. It honestly is a problem you can't do alot of RP without either
A. Writing a essay [Not RP, if it was then school children are roleplaying.] (You also have to hope these people are on 24/7)
B. Begging a GM to let you
I think it is okay to limit it within reason. Lets see what your reason is.

Okay... so RSD with the freedom to do RP did it, so you limited it?

Apparently not you limited their gameplay to be bureaucratic relying on other people who probably don't care to interact with a basic gameplay aspect you're limiting.

Okay but if he felt the need to say this/bring this to the suggestion forums that means a few things.
1. Current CL4/5 aren't representing the player base to staff properly they feel the need to vocalize it in a direct way to staff.
2. Current decisions do not represent a portion of the player base
3. Current SA/SC is not making themselves available to communicate with the player base enough IC/OOC.
I'd work on this a bit.

I would make this system more open to the view of the players to show anything is happening. If people don't see it being done, it wasn't done. If you were to explain your reasoning it would open the players to discussing their POV, vs only discussing your own. This could be a good RP material as you could even just "record" it or "Broadcast" the discussion on a radio channel.

See you being offensive like this in a position of power, name calling, and just being overall unapproachable, makes you a bad CL4/5. You aren't "above" anyone. You are player just like me or the other guy. But for some reason I get the feeling that if you are so willing and open to talk down and insult others HERE where anyone can see it, makes me think you do the same in-game and make people feel bad after speaking to you.

Do better.

holy fucking truthnuke.

I think the most pertinent thing this thread has revealed is how eager people were to attack the example behind the idea rather than the idea itself. The idea isn't that Cade fucked up. Or that Foxatron needs to be punished. Or that there's some big looming problem. This is a thread about making a rule that atleast enforces some level of responsibility for CL5/CL4 to avoid fucking up their departments and the server as a whole for the future - so that we don't have incidents that we have had in the past. Specifically just to avoid the headaches, the stress on both staff AND CL4 players- Because keep in mind.


One of the entire reasons I quit being an IA Ambassador was because of how much of a fumble Ethics were at the time. I got mixed up in the entire Bad Blood storyline, and the way it was handled ended up almost causing IA to go to O5 instead of Ethics (there were major discussions around potentially doing a mass treason RP at this time)

Now, with your edit -

"
I think this suggestion is wrong in that we need more staff involvment in RP and decisions, but has potential. I think if a decision is overall disagreed with by the playerbase there should be a voting system to allow the decision to be overruled or removed by O5, ECM, and if they choose not to, Staff.
I want players to have control, but shitty people in positions of power who just sit in it for months with some of the most gameplay braking rules has become a reoccurring problem, with no solution other than rule pointing till they're banned or removed.
"

I agree in some parts and disagree in others. Staff exist, primarily, to enforce a stable, roleplay-friendly environment. Gamemasters, specifically, exist to act as the Game Master - as in, the type from Dungeons and Dragons. It's a pretty generic term these days, but they're here to help involve people in roleplay and better actually set up roleplay on their behalf.

they should be involved, because thats their purpose- I just don't think they should be authoritives - They shouldn't be making the decisions themselves, rather just giving approval/disapproval as that isolates them from personal responsibility for having a bad idea, and instead makes it a case of them being figures of judgement that can then overturn or prevent/delay potentially dangerous changes from going through until issues are addressed.

Keep in mind, this entire thread specifies 'Major gameplay changes' - like... Restricting Sampling, Or something else equally massive that doesn't just affect the roleplay side.

E.g the entire A-1/O-1 re-classification WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THIS. THAT IS PURELY ROLEPLAY; GAMEPLAY WISE, ALMOST NOTHING HAS CHANGED - That is what I mean. This isn't about limiting the powers of O5/ECMs/Departmental Leaders for Roleplay. This is about limiting their power to change everyone elses gameplay that isn't necessarily going to make sense in a roleplay means past "we dislike slop."

 

[Vizoplez]

...Then if your problem was with that sort of behaviour, why are you making this kind of suggestion only now?

I ask this genuinely. Getting serious about your suggestion and ignoring...whatever is above your last reply (jesus christ some people are on one today) you're wrong about RSD. No test except major CL4+ and sampling actually requires a document for you to do. It requires the appropriate personnel, yes, but if you want to go to an SCP with an idea in mind and you've discussed it, that is allowed. Documentation is a formality for further reward, which should not be directly tied to the quality of your roleplay experience.

Several departments have further worked on cross-departmental initiatives to get them working together more, I can assure you that my time overseeing A-1 has been all about increasing approachability and their willingness to include non-reg members in their roleplay. SA has received significant empowerment in their additional content perms on the server (they never used to have access to ERT calling for example) and the location of the warfunds update, specifically because I hammered to SSL that they needed more to do than be our penpushers, cause that sucks.

Now that I read THIS reply in the context of your original suggestion, I'm almost confused...? It feels like this is pent up frustration due to what you experienced with Fox (don't get me wrong, I saw a lot of that shite, I don't disagree with you) and you're choosing now and the existing rp environment, which is NOTHING like how it was around that time, as an outlet for that frustration.

I can assure you, if you investigate further, initiatives have been founded to make sure people can do more with as much interactivity as possible. I despise excessive bureaucracy and I've done several de-layering attempts for various things where possible, i.e 008 now going down to SA for some auth, approving RSD removing documents as a requirement to test. I will only continue to be strict on samples because of their poison to the gameplay loop.

Because I brought it up before and got the exact same response I got here.

People unable to see over the bridge of their glasses; Keep in mind. None of this is a direct personal attack, I don't dislike anyone I listed here. I just feel as if they've either lead to some very frustrating situations or might lead to those situations where it ends up with someone either getting blacklisted, banned, or removed from a position for things that really might not be their fault.

Keep in mind, I've repeatedly said that you care for your department. You do work. You attempt to make things better; but that isn't to say that everything you have done is good. I am acknowledging, directly, that you have been way more beneficial than your predecessors for the overall quality of research - but overall quality of research is not the same as the macro gameplay of the server - Chems being more rare is absolutely goated and I enjoy the idea, but nowadays....

It's becoming a real problem now that we've re-allowed injecting SCPs with chemicals, for example. Now there's a ton more things to do again, there's a lot more cross-testing, a lot more documentation that suddenly needs to be written. Yes. It's good for stalling out RP on the UK side so people have proper time to write documents, do invested experiments, etc - but... Then, the US side attacked - jokes aside.

EDIT: REMEMBER GUYS? THAT TIME WHEN US SL LEAKED THE ENTIRE CHEM RECIPE LIST?

US doesn't have these sorts of policies, and if they do, they're not enforced (atleast very well). There's always going to be cross-trickles of information, but the primary issue I'm trying to bring up is that while certain changes are goated for roleplay - they might just end up sucking long-term - and having a way to properly attribute blame and accountability for poor changes so they stop happening would be amazing.

You could say this is just an issue with SCP server culture, and I'd agree wholeheartedly, but there's better ways we can go around this.

This is just a boilerplate rule, after-all, that just forces Dpt. leads and CL5s to actually talk to staff to potentially iron out future issues with upcoming updates/etc

 

[Vizoplez]

I think every single one of you is missing a very important point - This basically fucks over breaching SCPs that are unable to break BDs, such as 049 solo breaches for example. For that reasoning, I can see this being considered a form of mechanic abuse similar to how E-11 are adopting the strategy of leaving 096 tied up in stairwell.

However, just barring off everything by adding more rules against things tends to limit players more than it does free them, so instead I think that issues like the specific thing I just raised should be solved with a content change (as I suggested similarly for the other example issue) - Since US basically already does this with BDs anyway, I would agree with something like a delaying of this change (accompanied by a temporary lifting of the equivalent on US) until the issues this poses to breach gameplay are solved (ideally in a way that retains RP changes, without massively neutering specific breaches, more like just making them more difficult).

As for the primary debate here, I can see this both ways. I disagree heavily with the requirements imposed on testing and increasing restrictions in order to do so, but I see the need for improving the standard of RP. I disagree that the chosen approach is a healthy way of doing so, but I appreciate that it's not easy to determine a functioning solution. I ultimately believe that the final mentality that has been settled on, on both servers, seems slightly too restrictive for what this all fundamentally is and may not be conducive to new players joining either server and learning how it works.

Also, the format is not optional regardless of suggestion type and this will likely be denied out of the gate for not following it.

TL;DR - Everyone here is wrong, no-one wins hooray

Soft -Support

This has been pretty much my entire point, there's no good solutions for this. There's only stop-gaps and reductive measures that can help reduce the impact of when and if this becomes an issue, like having a convenient person to go "Yeah they approved this" to point at them and ask "what was the plan here" so people actually know what's going to happen, and why it might happen.

It's better to regulate it in a small amount, but not to the point of strangulating the ability for these people to make independent decisions about their respective departments and/or factions.

Also me when i forget the suggestions format again oops

 

[Broda]

Please go to the US server

 

[Vizoplez]

Please go to the US server

no

 

[Broda]

no

Then become CL5 and put your vision into action.

Literally moaning for the sake of it at this point

 

[Kevin Ki]

holy fucking truthnuke.

I think the most pertinent thing this thread has revealed is how eager people were to attack the example behind the idea rather than the idea itself. The idea isn't that Cade fucked up. Or that Foxatron needs to be punished. Or that there's some big looming problem. This is a thread about making a rule that atleast enforces some level of responsibility for CL5/CL4 to avoid fucking up their departments and the server as a whole for the future - so that we don't have incidents that we have had in the past. Specifically just to avoid the headaches, the stress on both staff AND CL4 players- Because keep in mind.

Completely agree with your assessment based on the reactions and overall behavior shown, as well as my experience with people who deliberately try to "make the server worse". I've posted before screenshots of people trying to get a CL4/5 position just to do that. Not to imply that's what these people are doing.

One of the entire reasons I quit being an IA Ambassador was because of how much of a fumble Ethics were at the time. I got mixed up in the entire Bad Blood storyline, and the way it was handled ended up almost causing IA to go to O5 instead of Ethics (there were major discussions around potentially doing a mass treason RP at this time)

That sounds peak af tho.

I agree in some parts and disagree in others. Staff exist, primarily, to enforce a stable, roleplay-friendly environment. Gamemasters, specifically, exist to act as the Game Master - as in, the type from Dungeons and Dragons. It's a pretty generic term these days, but they're here to help involve people in roleplay and better actually set up roleplay on their behalf.

No GM exist to get free PAC3 and do a bird event once a month. (Joke)

I agree on this assessment but also take issue with it to a point. Most big staff members (at least on US side) don't really play the server. No offense to them. So them getting a good idea of overall player opinion is also difficult. I'll get deeper into my explanation of a solution at the end.

they should be involved, because thats their purpose- I just don't think they should be authoritives - They shouldn't be making the decisions themselves, rather just giving approval/disapproval as that isolates them from personal responsibility for having a bad idea, and instead makes it a case of them being figures of judgement that can then overturn or prevent/delay potentially dangerous changes from going through until issues are addressed.

Also will combine this at the end as it's related.

Keep in mind, this entire thread specifies 'Major gameplay changes' - like... Restricting Sampling, Or something else equally massive that doesn't just affect the roleplay side.

I guess my question to this, would be: what EXACTLY is a big vs small? Who decides?

E.g the entire A-1/O-1 re-classification WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THIS. THAT IS PURELY ROLEPLAY; GAMEPLAY WISE, ALMOST NOTHING HAS CHANGED

I'm gonna isolate this for my solution suggestion, because this, was actually actioned on PERFECTLY.
Staff didn't just do this suddenly, they didn't rush into it, they actually did this WONDERFULLY and in a way that made O1, A1, ECM, and O5 feel fully heard.

Thay pinged all affected parties, made a thread they could talk in, and a poll to vote with.
All parties had a debate, put in their vote, staff looked it over, and made a decision based on it. Guess what? It went over wonderfully.

So how should we do this? If a large decision is made by cl4/5 and is brought into questiom, staff can then make a vote, ping involved playerbases, then start a thread to discuss it. Then based on the overall opinion changes are made and it can be changed and reattempted, or removed. SA/SC/Leadership aren't in trouble, they are just told "no, this is not liked by the playerbase" with a better knowledge and opinion on the decision.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

ive never done a 939 test that isnt sampling its always sampling i hate sampling

 

[Fricky Hecks]

oh my fucking god my entire comment i was writing up just got eaten after switching a page ITS FINE I'LL JUST TL;DR THIS SORRY IF I DONT PROPERLY ELABORATE OR COME OFF AS APATHETIC ITS 4AM I WANNA GET THIS DONE AND GO TO BED

-support i see the reasoning behind the assessment but i dont really agree with it (wow big shocker an o5 disagreeing with this)

This might be confusing at first; but hear me out. As of late, a large majority of CL4/CL5 positions on SCPRP UK have authorised major policy changes that have massively decreased the viability of playing specific sample-related SCPs; and pretty much entirely killed off D-class gameplay

if you're bored, flag onto researcher, grab a class-d and shove them in an inanimate scp, or crosstest inanimates, or grab 3 class-d and shove them into 173's cc to clean up, it's low brainpower rp but it gives yourself, class-d, gensec, isd if applicable and an scp something to do. the removal of sampling without documentation didnt kill class-d gameplay, it just halted a lot of people who's extent of interaction with these people were exclusively sampling.

e.g; Nowadays? We can't sample SCPs without a document (ANY SCP, INCLUDING CL1s) which- while it may sound good that we're increasing the 'roleplay level' of the server - it has done far more damage to the overall gameplay loop than it has benefitted, in my opinion.

hard disagree, the absence of sampling documentation removes any reason for CL1-3 to interact with the CL4s of a department which is not good for actually allowing the Jr. CL4s and even Sr. CL4s stuff to do in regards to interaction with the lower clearance guys in their department. even if said interaction is the bare minimum in getting the sampling document signed off its still some kind of interaction & roleplay being done.

Over the course of 4 days, I played SCP-939 for a total of 39 hours.
I was sampled once.
I was fed d-class twice.

This averages a test rate of less than one per day. What the fuck?

mean statement im aware but at times you need to put yourself into the position of the roleplay provider, not exclusively playing as the receiver. yeah, this blows like all hell and was probably mind-numbingly boring but at the same time there's nothing stopping you from flagging onto researcher and either doing the aforementioned low brainpower interactions with the scps or taking the time to write a more ambitious testing document for something to do with them. also this does kinda stem from scp-939 being a bit more of a limited scp in regards to more calmer interactions compared to a humanoid scp like 076 or 082 or tg-a/b.

As for why it is needed- on UK, guess what.

The people who implemented this weren't even CL5.

They were the CL4 ISD Director and RSD Directors.

It's pretty strange to me how this was allowed through in the first place but w/e

i mean yeah? fcom isnt there to do all the implementations for the departments, we're not here to babysit or micromanage. if both directors of both departments agreed to it & site administration agreed to it or just didnt object then im just gonna assume that the idea itself is fine in both theory & practice until something actually shows otherwise, unless it's just actually really stupid and everyone is taking a mental vacation in noticing the flaws of it.

I think every single one of you is missing a very important point - This basically fucks over breaching SCPs that are unable to break BDs, such as 049 solo breaches for example.

bold statement here but i'd argue this is a good thing? i dont think every scp breach should be large enough or have the capabilities to snowball into disrupting activities across the whole site, especially if it is as something as small as an 049 solo breach.

anyways im tired its 4am im going to bed if i sounded stupid during this i'll elaborate if you ask ok? ok good night.

 

[Vizoplez]

oh my fucking god my entire comment i was writing up just got eaten after switching a page ITS FINE I'LL JUST TL;DR THIS SORRY IF I DONT PROPERLY ELABORATE OR COME OFF AS APATHETIC ITS 4AM I WANNA GET THIS DONE AND GO TO BED

-support i see the reasoning behind the assessment but i dont really agree with it (wow big shocker an o5 disagreeing with this)

...

For the sake of brevity, I cut down your reply and will just be replying to what you directly said- if paraphrased.

1) Yes; Roleplay providers have to be factored into this, a lack of testing may simply be due to people not having anything planned/being burnt out for a bit and wanting to relax. Or simply just not having anything substantial enough to be worth writing a document over. It happens, I have this happen to myself all the time, etc. I completely agree that it's unfair to entirely shift the blame to the people actually providing.

2) "Just grab a bunch of D-class as researcher and shove them into 173 if you're bored, crosstest inanimates, etc"
-Crosstesting, no matter the clearance level of the SCPs involved, always requires CL4 authorisation last I checked - this may be different now - which I admit, is a nitpick; I get what you mean here, but the problem I think this introduces is it ends up being "any test for whatever reason except sampling" rather than "well thought-out tests". It becomes a case (as I highlighted) as random gensec/e-11 throwing D-class into SCP chambers to 'feed' or 'clean' them where all the D-class gets is a credit, and you might get a kill (50 EXP)
Yes; this is a primarily mechanics-focused assessment, but breaking down the roleplay of it; there's still some large issues that will inevitably come about especially with ISD - just by the nature of how RP works on GMOD.

it's a pretty universal issue among like, every server ever that a large percentage of the playerbase are not going to engage in documentation and writing work because they simply do not want to - and this has been my point when I mentioned Site 9(TO CLARIFY- I AM TALKING ABOUT RAISING THE RP LEVEL SHARPLY, NOT IMPLYING THAT SUCH IS BAD). Roleplay is good, we are a roleplay server; but trying to push too far, too fast will end up burning bridges with new players to the community. ESPECIALLY things like document requirements if you want to get into the more "interesting" parts of CN like chem experimentation, crosstesting, sampling... If only before, as I mentioned in a previous comment-

A lack of available people to approve specific documentations and tests - Yes, this is a derailment from the original rule suggestion, but it's important to highlight some of the recent issues to justify the suggestion itself. You can write the most flowery, well-grounded, lore-accurate document ever, but if nobody is there to see it; sorry bud- no test for you until one gets on and isn't busy - which... Is just bad; because again, certain nonhumanoid SCPs that really had no interaction outside of sampling/feeding/response testing lost a major part of their reason to even plan for tests for anyone that isn't willing or capable of investing the time and effort required to write documents on a consistent basis, and learn lore to do so.

3) Role doesn't matter here. I want to specify this; I could care less if you are an O5/ECM/Janitor; this is a rule suggestion and honestly at the end of the day, everyone will have biases. Your opinion is valid regardless; and the entire point of suggestions is to let people comment on it, and suggest/support/-support things as they see fit. You don't need to clarify - and I don't mean to be snide here; I just want people to give genuine feedback that they believe in, rather than thinking they'll be disregarded based on role/rank alone.

4) "Removing these requirements would remove an incentive for CL1-3 Researchers to interact with CL4"; Again - I think a lot of people are misunderstanding that this isn't a request to remove the existing rulings/policy made made- it was an example(all prior mentions of these policies) to demonstrate how something this far-reaching can have rippling effects that come up and damage things down the line.

Remember, this isn't a suggestion that says to revert these changes - all this suggestion is about (and I have admitted it in comments before this, as some of the changes are actually good) is that perhaps there should be atleast some level of staff involvement just so that people can point and go "Well staff authorised it so don't blame us. We just suggested the idea."; which, I mean, can sound unfair at first, but it also protects SCL4/FCOM from being directly attacked over things they proposed. It's not solely their blame anymore- and more importantly, it could help iron out kinks in policy far before it goes live, so there doesn't have to be immediate revisions to policy to suddenly fit an entirely new mechanic being added in the next update.

5) FCOM, while not necessarily there to handle implementation/etc - as it should be, delegation is extremely good - I think there should be a certain level of discussion that goes on between you lot, your underlings and SL again to properly plan out what future you guys envision (even if that's just a monthly iteniary that isn't fixed, ergo, you guys might say you have plans to rework the way tests are being done, or how specific policies relating to d-block, d-class, etc, are handled. Making it so certain anomalies require certain types of D-class - NOT THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, HELL NO, IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE- But again, the point should be that people can look in from the outside, trusted people with experience with the server, rules, and how the servers actually play most of the time - so things can actually be reviewed) - so as prior comments have expounded upon, it can be correctly communicated and distributed down the chain of command so everyone knows what is going to happen. Being blindsided is always going to happen for some users, but I think a large amount of issues that people have had with recent policy changes is how suddenly they have happened, which is why this thread is so back-and-forth.

It's about cohesion, understanding and issue-finding, not about limiting powers or disrupting your ability to run the faction, or your departmental leads from doing their job. Nothing is worse than a rushed-through change, or one that is half-baked and poorly understood by those that are meant to either enforce it, or directly manage it as a consequence.

Some people see genuine issues with how certain roleplay powers are not necessarily being used - but moreso the surrounding circumstances of how they're being used and implemented - e.g; prior cases I have brought up and primarily why this thread has gotten so large - it isn't an attempt at direct ragebait or anything like that; it's just an extremely touchy subject that's been simmering for a while over a surprisingly large berth of changes.

I'll admit it, this suggestion is bad - but there aren't really many alternatives to fixing an issue of top-down power being too unilateral and easy to use. It's going to eventually end up in a similar situation as to why all important documents must be owned by SL - Someone. Some day, is going to mess up, and mess up badly enough that a far more restrictive and no-fun implementation of something similar comes along.

People are more than welcome to suggest a replacement ruling that's more hands-off, but I can't really find a way to do it and have it still be effective, yet fair. Keep in mind, all I'm suggesting is a rule that just mandates wide-sweeping changes that can effect an entire faction from noncombatives to combatives be reviewed by SL/Content Team to make sure it isn't going to break any future plans, and can be properly communicated. Like what happened with the A/O reclassifications. That was amazing & keep in mind, as I said earlier. That type of stuff wouldn't even need to be ran by SL under the new ruling - as it didn't actually change the gameplay - all it did was change in-character knowledge in a way that didn't radically alter the way they interact with the server.

It's now 5 AM so I'm also heading to sleep.
Serious responses get serious responses in turn, to those that said I was just trying to lazily ragebait :/


EDITS: Clarified some comments and properly bulked them out.

 

[Jeager]

This guy wouldn't last a day on US..........

 

[Vizoplez]

This guy wouldn't last a day on US..........

US staff are too busy being inactive to read suggestions anyway

EDIT:

Also what does he mean by this....
I literally said US is a better gameplay experience than UK if with it's issues (multiple times infact).

I play US from time to time specifically to get a feel for both servers smh
past the incredibly casual usage of slurs and RDM - it really is just UK but more MRP-like.
It's comfy.

 

[Speff]

past the incredibly casual usage of slurs and RDM

thats our specialty