Search results

I'd argue +support, but not necessarily because "grr I hate CI", but because it restricts the "breach" aspect of the server. New players would have to either be lucky enough to be on an SCP that CI want to breach, when they want to breach it, or wait in the autobreach queue. Perhaps fixes could...

Changes/additions to perma weapons will be denied, read FAQ.

- Support for the same reason that I say any time someone does a suggestion like this. We can barely trust CL4's to open the BD responsibly, with me seeing quite a couple instances in which people just rush through the door no questions asked because... they can, which lead to SCP's moving up, I...

Uhhhh 2 month suggestion still up?

This is a rule suggestion... so dclass could already do this.... only the rules stop them, first the "dclass can't breach rule" then the "12 MTF + needed" rule

Oh no, I do have issues with class D breaching 079 or 682, just that SL agreed it's allowed (I think? I don't even know if class D CAN breach SCPs, or if nobody cares enough to call sits). I'd say this is a good balancing, class D can feasibly breach SCPs but 008 is too far. My last point was...

That would be an argument for class D not to follow fearRP, which would never happen, but remember that they would think that they are getting out in 30 days. Some of the more disobedient class D would be more prone to extreme acts like breaching, but not to the degree where it's basically...

Well. Seeing this, I wil say again: Why would Dclass breach it? Either you know what it is (in some magical way), and therefore know how easily and violently it could kill you, or you don't know, and therefore have no reason to breach it. After all, why would you ever hack an airlock (after...

............................................ - Support, nothing else needs be said really

Mhm, that's why coming to the forums was a good choice, but this is the wrong section. Duncan, I advise you make a complaint on the appropriate section on these forums. The idea makes sense, but this is just the wrong place to put this.

IC issue sadly, rules are OOC, most you could do is make a player complaint on here.

@Dennid I think someone needs perma props!!!!

Quite a long suggestion, so this only covers the stripping suggestion. On that, heavy -support. The system would allow unintended things to be allowed, after all, a good portion of the jobs do not hold any sort of stripping tool, outside the E menu. There also seem to be limitations with an...

Note on "randomly dancing", can be argued failRP a lot of the time. Just call a sit.

For quick clarification: The bodycams record nothing. Their purpouse is to allow you to use clips you get with software IC.

The only benefit l have seen argued of the bodycam change itself is very weak. +Support If you're going to make something worse, at least let everyone use it conveniently.

Guts..... my guy...... Not all CL4's don't spawn with it (somehow), and why would combatives NOT have bodycams.... Add DEA to the list +soup

Shouldn't be used, yet it's used so much that this suggestion was made. The impersonation would also do the exact opposite, making the person feel safe OOC, and therefore would share more info IC than they should (a possibility). It's lose-lose unless all names would be shuffled above the person.

Would the person not be able to just impersonate another person? Unless the people who see the disugised know the person with the name isn't on, you could get away with it. This would most probably violate naming conventions, so your alternative is to set a name that nobody has. This means that...

-Support I already can't trust literally any CL4 with the simple task of NOT opening two of the biggest defences we have once SCPs get to EZ, letting Nu7 do this would make the situation worse. Furthermore, I have heard Nu7 go from requesting to yelling at me to open the door, with no regard...