What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion is to request the addition of the "Level 4 'Restricted'" Gray Keycard to the existing loadout of Senior Clearance 4 personnel in ISD.
At most, this change would affect a maximum total of 6 senior whitelisted members: the Director, Deputy Director, and four Commissioners.
I have mulled over this suggestion in my head for quite some time and I have spent time refining my idea by talking to a variety of people; Site Administration members, O-5 members, and former ISD Directors have provided helpful input to help me form my current request.
Originally, it began as "all clearance 4 personnel with disguise cards should have a restricted card," however, this would be a disaster for surface operations and was too broad. Then I wanted to change my request to all CL4 ISD personnel, however this group is too large to make that a fair request, and it would not fulfill some of my main objectives. Finally I landed on my current proposal. Originally, I also wanted to suggest that SI also be provided these cards, but it is not my place to make that suggestion.
Please see the "positives" section for further explanation.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
This has not been suggested before to my knowledge. However, I was informed by someone, I forgot who, that apparently these cards were originally going to be given to ISD, but just weren't. I'm hoping to change that, at least partially.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
My interpretation of 'the purpose of having a restricted card' has changed quite a bit since I started thinking about this. Here are some reasons I believe this implementation is an intelligent idea:
- Provides the listed individuals with the capability to mask or hide their department affiliation, especially and specifically when disguised. This is mostly useful when engaged in sensitive monitoring, observation, or when being ID-checked in a situation where revealing your department affiliation will spoil the purpose of your disguise (this happens more often than you may think).
- Provides the listed individuals with the capability to mask or hide their name and rank/role. This will provide an added layer of obscurity to SR. CL4 personnel when they are engaged in sensitive work. To clarify, I am NOT asking to provide ISD SR CL4 with the capability to just completely erase their identities or not have a public-facing representation of their identity. I understand part of the reason A/O specifically has this card is because they are permitted to have only a codename, and while I respect that and completely agree with its use-case, it's not relevant to my request. Hiding the name of SR. CL4 ISD personnel would be purely for safety and/or when necessary for an appropriate ISD-duty related purpose. I would still want them to possess their normal CL4 card for general identification purposes, especially if they are undisguised and operating 'as normal' (ISD is a public facing department, though it could use a tiny bit more obscurity).
These first two points are the ones I want to highlight most because I have routinely witnessed my high ranking personnel (including me, several times) get their cover blown because they were forced to pull out an ID due to a check. Most of the time, when ISD senior leadership is disguised, it's because we really really don't want people to know who we are, even (sometimes) including our own lower personnel for whom we are responsible for policing and monitoring the behavior of (e.g. one of our Commissioner positions has the direct responsibility of handling internal discipline and conduct matters).
Additional positive points include:
- There is minimal risk to card loss;
-- Senior ISD leadership does not travel the forsaken winter-lands of the surface
-- The senior leadership team is a small group of 6 (max) individuals who are no more or less likely to die and drop their gray card than any other combative gray-card holder (yes, at times, I've found them just laying on the ground).
- The provisioning of cards to additional groups aside from A/O will provide much needed OBSCURITY to the gray-cards themselves.
-- In OOC terms, it is no secret that only certain A/O have these cards, so when people see them, it's not much of a guessing game as to who you're ID checking, which truly defeats most of the point.
-- In IC terms, people who are generally observant of others could hypothetically begin to piece together when and where they see these cards. People do notice disguises sometimes. I have no doubt that if CI tried, they could genuinely gather enough IC intel to make a reasonable conclusion as to who does and does not have a gray card. Therefore, providing them to a few more people may provide added obscurity which will actually reinforce their secrecy and obscurity (meaning A/O will actually be MORE 'secretive' when using these cards, because it'll be harder to tell who they are).
\\ Very stupid analogy: If every cop drives a marked sedan, but the president's security drives unmarked SUVs, it's pretty easy to figure out who the president's security is after you pay attention for more than a few days. However if a few additional officers, that actually have their own uses for those unmarked SUVs, also drive them, then suddenly it becomes much harder to figure out who is who.
Lastly, this is merely a loadout change for 2 in-game roles, so it's implementation would be simpler than a more extravagant request.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
One possibility is that it just ends up being underutilized, though that may be addressed with proper counseling to the recipients about what the card's appropriate use-cases and purpose is.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I believe that this relatively small change may provide a very useful tool to the senior leadership team of ISD without genuinely detracting or reducing any benefits from those who already have and use the card. I understand that sometimes features are "made for certain groups" or "certain use cases" and that some may not necessarily want to share those tools/items, but I truly think this small change could provide a benefit if it was just given a chance.
Thank you for your time
This suggestion is to request the addition of the "Level 4 'Restricted'" Gray Keycard to the existing loadout of Senior Clearance 4 personnel in ISD.
At most, this change would affect a maximum total of 6 senior whitelisted members: the Director, Deputy Director, and four Commissioners.
I have mulled over this suggestion in my head for quite some time and I have spent time refining my idea by talking to a variety of people; Site Administration members, O-5 members, and former ISD Directors have provided helpful input to help me form my current request.
Originally, it began as "all clearance 4 personnel with disguise cards should have a restricted card," however, this would be a disaster for surface operations and was too broad. Then I wanted to change my request to all CL4 ISD personnel, however this group is too large to make that a fair request, and it would not fulfill some of my main objectives. Finally I landed on my current proposal. Originally, I also wanted to suggest that SI also be provided these cards, but it is not my place to make that suggestion.
Please see the "positives" section for further explanation.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
This has not been suggested before to my knowledge. However, I was informed by someone, I forgot who, that apparently these cards were originally going to be given to ISD, but just weren't. I'm hoping to change that, at least partially.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
My interpretation of 'the purpose of having a restricted card' has changed quite a bit since I started thinking about this. Here are some reasons I believe this implementation is an intelligent idea:
- Provides the listed individuals with the capability to mask or hide their department affiliation, especially and specifically when disguised. This is mostly useful when engaged in sensitive monitoring, observation, or when being ID-checked in a situation where revealing your department affiliation will spoil the purpose of your disguise (this happens more often than you may think).
- Provides the listed individuals with the capability to mask or hide their name and rank/role. This will provide an added layer of obscurity to SR. CL4 personnel when they are engaged in sensitive work. To clarify, I am NOT asking to provide ISD SR CL4 with the capability to just completely erase their identities or not have a public-facing representation of their identity. I understand part of the reason A/O specifically has this card is because they are permitted to have only a codename, and while I respect that and completely agree with its use-case, it's not relevant to my request. Hiding the name of SR. CL4 ISD personnel would be purely for safety and/or when necessary for an appropriate ISD-duty related purpose. I would still want them to possess their normal CL4 card for general identification purposes, especially if they are undisguised and operating 'as normal' (ISD is a public facing department, though it could use a tiny bit more obscurity).
These first two points are the ones I want to highlight most because I have routinely witnessed my high ranking personnel (including me, several times) get their cover blown because they were forced to pull out an ID due to a check. Most of the time, when ISD senior leadership is disguised, it's because we really really don't want people to know who we are, even (sometimes) including our own lower personnel for whom we are responsible for policing and monitoring the behavior of (e.g. one of our Commissioner positions has the direct responsibility of handling internal discipline and conduct matters).
Additional positive points include:
- There is minimal risk to card loss;
-- Senior ISD leadership does not travel the forsaken winter-lands of the surface
-- The senior leadership team is a small group of 6 (max) individuals who are no more or less likely to die and drop their gray card than any other combative gray-card holder (yes, at times, I've found them just laying on the ground).
- The provisioning of cards to additional groups aside from A/O will provide much needed OBSCURITY to the gray-cards themselves.
-- In OOC terms, it is no secret that only certain A/O have these cards, so when people see them, it's not much of a guessing game as to who you're ID checking, which truly defeats most of the point.
-- In IC terms, people who are generally observant of others could hypothetically begin to piece together when and where they see these cards. People do notice disguises sometimes. I have no doubt that if CI tried, they could genuinely gather enough IC intel to make a reasonable conclusion as to who does and does not have a gray card. Therefore, providing them to a few more people may provide added obscurity which will actually reinforce their secrecy and obscurity (meaning A/O will actually be MORE 'secretive' when using these cards, because it'll be harder to tell who they are).
\\ Very stupid analogy: If every cop drives a marked sedan, but the president's security drives unmarked SUVs, it's pretty easy to figure out who the president's security is after you pay attention for more than a few days. However if a few additional officers, that actually have their own uses for those unmarked SUVs, also drive them, then suddenly it becomes much harder to figure out who is who.
Lastly, this is merely a loadout change for 2 in-game roles, so it's implementation would be simpler than a more extravagant request.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
One possibility is that it just ends up being underutilized, though that may be addressed with proper counseling to the recipients about what the card's appropriate use-cases and purpose is.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I believe that this relatively small change may provide a very useful tool to the senior leadership team of ISD without genuinely detracting or reducing any benefits from those who already have and use the card. I understand that sometimes features are "made for certain groups" or "certain use cases" and that some may not necessarily want to share those tools/items, but I truly think this small change could provide a benefit if it was just given a chance.
Thank you for your time
Donator
Community Sup.
Group Moderator
