What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Rewords 912's rules to restrict usage of its stun baton to attack players.
912 has a rule regarding the usage of its stun baton:
The suggested rewording would include this:
Many 912 players may use the original rule's poor wording as an excuse to beat and maim D-Class who have contraband. With this, many 912 players just beat D-Class to death instead of following the latter portion of the rule. On top of that, being cuffed while downed accelerates bleeding out, so malicious compliance of the original rule still allows 912 players to indirectly cause the deaths of D-Class.
With the change, 912 players will have to be more selective about who they attack, why, and if death is warranted. The new addition contributes some roleplay aspects by encouraging 912 players to report a dubious D-Class rather than senselessly beating them, especially when detaining them is not possible. The new addition also clarifies an extension of the rule to other personnel besides D-Class, encouraging 912 to roam outside of D-Block and catch perpetrators.
The rule change also indirectly subjects 912 to Foundation policy, requiring some in-context knowledge of Foundation rules to enforce them appropriately.
Other smaller changes serve to clarify the rule to avoid loopholes or broad interpretations.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different:
Not about this rule.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Less people using 912 as an invulnerable boxing machine against D-Class.
A more positive D-Class experience, even when 912 is present.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
912 players seeing less physical action.
This change may blur the lines between IC and OOC rules but considering how there is little IC punishment methods or dishing for 912 I think it's fair for the server rules to act as a tighter leash until something better to keep 912 in-line IC is adopted.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Ultimately, this is more to the benefit of D-Class players because of how opposing 912 is to them with little to no counterplay. Plus, D-Class are often beat and killed by 912 for having contraband that is not a weapon, which harms D-Class gameplay. This accounts for situations where a weapon (or other contraband) is possessed but not used, so 912 players will no longer be able to resort to violence and death.
I would also like to see a stronger enforcement of 912's rules as I have personally witnessed 912 players overstepping boundaries without repercussions, whether it be IC or OOC. 912 is an extremely oppressive force against D-Class and should be treated with more tact to ensure a balanced gameplay loop.
I gladly accept any critiques or tweaks to this suggestion.
Rewords 912's rules to restrict usage of its stun baton to attack players.
912 has a rule regarding the usage of its stun baton:
The suggested rewording would include this:
Many 912 players may use the original rule's poor wording as an excuse to beat and maim D-Class who have contraband. With this, many 912 players just beat D-Class to death instead of following the latter portion of the rule. On top of that, being cuffed while downed accelerates bleeding out, so malicious compliance of the original rule still allows 912 players to indirectly cause the deaths of D-Class.
With the change, 912 players will have to be more selective about who they attack, why, and if death is warranted. The new addition contributes some roleplay aspects by encouraging 912 players to report a dubious D-Class rather than senselessly beating them, especially when detaining them is not possible. The new addition also clarifies an extension of the rule to other personnel besides D-Class, encouraging 912 to roam outside of D-Block and catch perpetrators.
The rule change also indirectly subjects 912 to Foundation policy, requiring some in-context knowledge of Foundation rules to enforce them appropriately.
Other smaller changes serve to clarify the rule to avoid loopholes or broad interpretations.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different:
Not about this rule.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Less people using 912 as an invulnerable boxing machine against D-Class.
A more positive D-Class experience, even when 912 is present.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
912 players seeing less physical action.
This change may blur the lines between IC and OOC rules but considering how there is little IC punishment methods or dishing for 912 I think it's fair for the server rules to act as a tighter leash until something better to keep 912 in-line IC is adopted.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Ultimately, this is more to the benefit of D-Class players because of how opposing 912 is to them with little to no counterplay. Plus, D-Class are often beat and killed by 912 for having contraband that is not a weapon, which harms D-Class gameplay. This accounts for situations where a weapon (or other contraband) is possessed but not used, so 912 players will no longer be able to resort to violence and death.
I would also like to see a stronger enforcement of 912's rules as I have personally witnessed 912 players overstepping boundaries without repercussions, whether it be IC or OOC. 912 is an extremely oppressive force against D-Class and should be treated with more tact to ensure a balanced gameplay loop.
I gladly accept any critiques or tweaks to this suggestion.
Donator
