Rule Suggestion Prevent CI from Flagging to D-Class during D-Block Raids

[Jack Edwards (Spoon)]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Prevents players actively playing CI from flagging onto D-Class during a CI raid targeting D-Block either as a primary or secondary objective.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I am aware of.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Prevents CI from flagging on D-Class during D-Block raids to effectively get a second or even third life during a raid.
Makes it less of a pain in the ass for GSD and Foundation to combat D-Block raids.
Less codes for Foundation.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
D-Block raids are slightly less effective.
CI get less combat.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
CI being able to immediately flag to D-Class after dying in a D-Block raid or otherwise just using D-Class as additional lives to continue helping their friends raid Foundation should honestly already be a rule. Picture this, CI raids D-Block, they bring a bunch of pistols but also have some energy weapons. A few of the raiding CI die getting to D-Block. Instead of waiting for the raid to end or doing something else, they immediately flag to D-Class and rush to showers. Their CI friends then give them energy weapons to help them, effectively acting as another life during the raid. This is an issue on both sides with CI intentionally flagging to D-Class to prolong raids and riots, which negatively impacts Foundation in an unfair way.
And to all -supports, please explain why this is a bad suggestion.

 

[Zen]

Realistically, this should be counted under job abuse, but job abuse isn't actually enforced.

 

[Advil Smith]

-Support

Hi you asked me to explain so I will give my explanation on why this doesn't make sense and is not a issue.

CI being able to immediately flag to D-Class after dying in a D-Block raid or otherwise just using D-Class as additional lives to continue helping their friends raid Foundation should honestly already be a rule. Picture this, CI raids D-Block, they bring a bunch of pistols but also have some energy weapons. A few of the raiding CI die getting to D-Block. Instead of waiting for the raid to end or doing something else, they immediately flag to D-Class and rush to showers. Their CI friends then give them energy weapons to help them, effectively acting as another life during the raid. This is an issue on both sides with CI intentionally flagging to D-Class to prolong raids and riots, which negatively impacts Foundation in an unfair way.
And to all -supports, please explain why this is a bad suggestion.

This part isn't having anything to do with what your suggestion is about. Your "scenario" Already breaks the rules if people aren't following character separation:
"1.07(b) — Character SeparationPlayers must keep their characters, relationships, knowledge, and conflicts separate from one another and from themselves OOC. This includes transferring knowledge between characters, treating another character differently because of an unrelated character, or allowing IC disagreements and consequences to become OOC hostility."

Your suggestion isn't a good idea and you justify it with something thats already against the rules.


Now onto your actual suggestion. The way I see it, your simply wanting CI to be restricted to get on d class when CI are raiding d block. Would this not be pretty close to how e-11 flag on during breaches? CI often say "D class flag on" ANYONE can flag on d class. It's not a issue as long as they follow character separation in which case you can make a report, not this suggestion.

From, CI who occasionally raids D-block to get @Bill Banks a tranq for kidnaps

 

[Evil]

-support
my reason is similar to what advil said
also this is something that can't be really enforce unless staff are constantly watching logs so this just seems like a waste of time

 

[WestIshere]

-Support

Hi you asked me to explain so I will give my explanation on why this doesn't make sense and is not a issue.

This part isn't having anything to do with what your suggestion is about. Your "scenario" Already breaks the rules if people aren't following character separation:
"1.07(b) — Character SeparationPlayers must keep their characters, relationships, knowledge, and conflicts separate from one another and from themselves OOC. This includes transferring knowledge between characters, treating another character differently because of an unrelated character, or allowing IC disagreements and consequences to become OOC hostility."

Your suggestion isn't a good idea and you justify it with something thats already against the rules.


Now onto your actual suggestion. The way I see it, your simply wanting CI to be restricted to get on d class when CI are raiding d block. Would this not be pretty close to how e-11 flag on during breaches? CI often say "D class flag on" ANYONE can flag on d class. It's not a issue as long as they follow character separation in which case you can make a report, not this suggestion.

From, CI who occasionally raids D-block to get @Bill Banks a tranq for kidnaps

The difference between E11 flagging on during breaches and CI flagging on dclass is the fact that E11 didn't cause the b reach it happened naturally plus it supports server health by stopping the breach in a respectable time. CI flagging on dclass is something that they themselves caused with the raid which already should be considered job abuse but even if it isnt it still aids towards ruining server health anyway. Idk thats just my thoughts on the matter

+support to the suggestion

 

[Headbutt]

-support

by the same logic make it against the rules for e11 to flag on scps while ci are breaching. if u make that a rule you have a +support with all my heart

 

[Advil Smith]

The difference between E11 flagging on during breaches and CI flagging on dclass is the fact that E11 didn't cause the b reach it happened naturally

what if ci hacks scp and then that ci flags on a scp or something like is more often done to prevent metagame. Also what if a ci flags on e-11 after they breach something. Or what if a person gets on gsd during a riot.

Really those scenarios aren't the point the main point is this entire suggestion is based with something thats already against rules for most part and outlawing ci from playing d class is just dumb. Anyone can get on d class when ci say d class flag on.

 

[Lonix]

just remove the BIG announcement "A RIOT HAD BEGAN" from all surface jobs, it encourages metagaming

 

[Velimir Volokov]

+ support

Ci mains will hate it but it's needed

 

[Headbutt]

what if ci hacks scp and then that ci flags on a scp or something like is more often done to prevent metagame. Also what if a ci flags on e-11 after they breach something. Or what if a person gets on gsd during a riot.

Really those scenarios aren't the point the main point is this entire suggestion is based with something thats already against rules for most part and outlawing ci from playing d class is just dumb. Anyone can get on d class when ci say d class flag on.

suggestion similar to these will always be made. ci has the best combatives on the server which is why it is so noticeable when they get on dclass. clearly this was made without much thought and gone from anger and annoyance especially since we have upped the amount of d block raids.

 

[Advil Smith]

suggestion similar to these will always be made. ci has the best combatives on the server which is why it is so noticeable when they get on dclass. clearly this was made without much thought and gone from anger and annoyance especially since we have upped the amount of d block raids.

suggestion was made after the following MR log:

"MR 45 D-block Great hold"

 

[jse_markfelix2]

-support

I don't see any real way to enforce this

 

[Yoyo]

USA CI did did our first real dblock hold in like weeks and this suggestion was made. either thats a coincidence or CI just had a good hold this time around..

 

[Trickl]

Realistically, this should be counted under job abuse, but job abuse isn't actually enforced.

With ur logic I could flag on MTF and then kill the CI raid I was just in and its job abuse, thats not how job abuse works at all.

-Support bad suggestions I'd like to have fun and not be limited at every second and it doesnt have any significant impact in any form other than you getting skill issued.

I am baffled a chief of security is even making this suggestion.

 

[Evan]

-Support

With this logic, CI should stop saying for people to flag on D-Class because they're taking orders by CI to get on for a riot CI started.

 

[Jack Edwards (Spoon)]

Making a generalized response here
To CI, please stop just calling this a "Cope Suggestion", not every suggestion aimed at restricting CI is a cope suggestion. I ultimately won't be offended if this is denied

USA CI did did our first real dblock hold in like weeks and this suggestion was made. either thats a coincidence or CI just had a good hold this time around..

I've been playing on UK GSD a bit too and it's been happening there a lot lately, which is part of the inspiration behind this suggestion

With ur logic I could flag on MTF and then kill the CI raid I was just in and its job abuse, thats not how job abuse works at all.

-Support bad suggestions I'd like to have fun and not be limited at every second and it doesnt have any significant impact in any form other than you getting skill issued.

I am baffled a chief of security is even making this suggestion.

I can make suggestions regarding the server and I did not I claim this is job abuse

-support

by the same logic make it against the rules for e11 to flag on scps while ci are breaching. if u make that a rule you have a +support with all my heart

I would say depends, my example would be if a player has both Nu-7 and E-11. They are fighting CI during a raid but once the raid reaches HCZ they immediately flag E-11 so they are able to better combat the raid. That would be unfair and I would be with you there. If it's someone switching roles purely to make it easier for them to combat a scenario or groups then yes, but I also agree similar to my suggestion it would be hard to differentiate between flagging for the sake of preventing/combating a scenario or flagging because they want to play that role.

Now onto your actual suggestion. The way I see it, your simply wanting CI to be restricted to get on d class when CI are raiding d block. Would this not be pretty close to how e-11 flag on during breaches? CI often say "D class flag on" ANYONE can flag on d class. It's not a issue as long as they follow character separation in which case you can make a report, not this suggestion.

Aye in a sense, like I said and I agree with the point this would be hard to enforce, individuals flagging to the role purely for ease of preventing/combating scenarios is unfair as instead of playing the role for fun or RP, switching the role to prevent something negative to their faction or other character from happening.

And in general I would like to remind people this is just my opinion. I am obviously biased as everyone is so it's not the end of the world if this gets denied. I just wanted to make it as I felt it was unfair, but that's ultimately staff's choice. It's just a game at the end of the day :]

 

[Headbutt]

Making a generalized response here
To CI, please stop just calling this a "Cope Suggestion", not every suggestion aimed at restricting CI is a cope suggestion. I ultimately won't be offended if this is denied

i think people are just fed up of having their gameplay restricted by stupid additions

 

[Ace'honoured']

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Prevents players actively playing CI from flagging onto D-Class during a CI raid targeting D-Block either as a primary or secondary objective.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I am aware of.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Prevents CI from flagging on D-Class during D-Block raids to effectively get a second or even third life during a raid.
Makes it less of a pain in the ass for GSD and Foundation to combat D-Block raids.
Less codes for Foundation.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
D-Block raids are slightly less effective.
CI get less combat.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
CI being able to immediately flag to D-Class after dying in a D-Block raid or otherwise just using D-Class as additional lives to continue helping their friends raid Foundation should honestly already be a rule. Picture this, CI raids D-Block, they bring a bunch of pistols but also have some energy weapons. A few of the raiding CI die getting to D-Block. Instead of waiting for the raid to end or doing something else, they immediately flag to D-Class and rush to showers. Their CI friends then give them energy weapons to help them, effectively acting as another life during the raid. This is an issue on both sides with CI intentionally flagging to D-Class to prolong raids and riots, which negatively impacts Foundation in an unfair way.
And to all -supports, please explain why this is a bad suggestion.

Just say your bad at the game please

 

[Jack Edwards (Spoon)]

Just say your bad at the game please

No need to be like that, I know I'm not the best at combat, but I am just making a suggestion

 

[Jack Edwards (Spoon)]

i think people are just fed up of having their gameplay restricted by stupid additions

I understand, just making a suggestion, not everything is cope