Denied Adding a rule to SCP 096's breach

[Goblins]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
The proposal adds a law that would make it more difficult for the RC of SCP-096
- Add a rule - that it will not be possible to sit/wait inside SCP-096's chamber, so that it will not be so easy to stop the breach. Currently, people are taking a picture and waiting inside the chamber, which undoubtedly does not allow 096 to enter.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I dont know, didnt see one before.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
1. Will add more interest, will be harder to do RC.
2. Will remove the baiting issue - in fact, all it takes is for someone to take a picture of 096 and sit in his cell, and the breach will be over.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
1. Will make RC more difficult - there will be more use of the bucket as there was before.
2. Will no longer allow players to sit with a picture inside the cage and wait for it to arrive

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Since people sit with a picture inside the chamber and wait for 096 to arrive and then lock it, it shortens the whole breach, in fact it's just like baiting because he has no other choice but to run inside,
so I suggest preventing this, and returning the whole thing to trying to get him with a bucket, or neutralizing him in some other way.
Will both add more interest and prevent people from stopping raids before they star

 

[Evil]

It is a containment procedure+they already know they are dead, i belive mtf units have a mentality to not just start to ran away from an unstoppable force but rather accept their fate. Now i could understand this from a non combative standpoint where they are not trained for mentally draning stuff like this

Just because they are mtf doesn't mean they have the mentality to not run away if its a pvt looking at 096 he would probably run away while soiling himself.
also +Support
096 will do anything to get to surface to isolate himself from anyone in the world normally if his door is closed he would be fine but since his door is open 096 will fear that someone will look at him thus that is why he trys to leave to go to surface.

 

[Joris Kilotoviz/London]

..Hence my saying that this should generally be more case-by-case. I think leaving it too open could leave it too abusable by minges, but forcing it too much one way or the other, would not make sense/be too unbalanced/be too unfair in either direction, for reasons discussed. I think that if you're able to reasonably justify your actions, it should be fine.

And honestly, this wouldn't even a new rule. This would reasonably just be further clarification of FearRP/FailRP

The issue I see with a Case-by-Case basis is that it could very much be influenced by staff bias

I mean, it could be argued that only specific CL3s would know about 096

Or it could be argued that knowing that you've seen whatever is responsible for the C4 already means you're dead and might as well go out heroically

Ooorr it could be argued that if you'd previously seen a C4 , you know what is going to happen already

There are so many variables that it seems problematic to make a ruling that only specific people can go into 096s CC after seeing his face

 

[Merrick Travolta]

Let me begin with saying I am not supporting this. Big ol -Support.

Logistically I don't see how staff could handle this. We have no way to know if a player is a target untill 096 gets them. So do we warn people who beeline to 096's chamber? That would just cause people to stop calling it out and just begin "finding reasons" to go into HCZ when they know they've been exposed.

Players were smart enough to come up with this tactic, They'll also be smart enough to work a way around any ruling put in place that isn't "Warn anyone who starts walking towards HCZ when 096 is breached"

If someone has a wording for the ruling I'd love to see it personally.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Logistically I don't see how staff could handle this. We have no way to know if a player is a target untill 096 gets them. So do we warn people who beeline to 096's chamber? That would just cause people to stop calling it out and just begin "finding reasons" to go into HCZ when they know they've been exposed.

Players were smart enough to come up with this tactic, They'll also be smart enough to work a way around any ruling put in place that isn't "Warn anyone who starts walking towards HCZ when 096 is breached"

If someone has a wording for the ruling I'd love to see it personally.

Basing this further off of my previous arguments in the thread about making this further clarification of existing rules, it doesn't particularly need to be related to noticing player movement at the time - It can relate to certain specifics surrounding what players are found to have been in the CC.

It would have to be something that could reasonably supplement in both clarifying a potential verdict (again, without pushing things too far in one direction or the other, maintaining reasonable granularity) as well as communicating what could potentially be FearRP/FailRP or some other rulebreak, with the assumption that the 096 would be the one calling the sit, with the further assumption that said 096 has some form of evidence showing that it was that(/those) specific player(s) in the CC,

Which then, again, going by what I've said previously in the thread, becomes a process of
"Does that(/Do those) players have reasonable cause to be there in that situation, in this context?" ->

• They are a DEA/MTF/GOC/Any CL3+/GenSec CL2+... Maybe Sr. Researcher, and/or whatever other jobs would reasonably go there etc., you get the idea, -> This, in all likelihood, would not be further pursued.
  
  
• They are a Janitor/Chef/Jr. Researcher/Engineer/Doctor/Civilian, etc. Generally people who would not, under normal circumstances, have the clearance, IC knowledge about 096 or otherwise to reasonably be found as 096's last target waiting in the CC -> Potential for further investigation, ->

Likely, the player in question could be brought to a sit? (Which is awkward for 096, needs a bucket, but I've had them before in cases such as bodyblocking sits) And it's found that:

• "I was ordered to after saying to a [MTF, GenSec CPT, whatever, you get the idea] that I saw an 096 pic" (Tbh, they don't need to know IC that it's an 096 pic, obviously they can say it OOC, but it could be reasonably construed to not specifically be that IC, unless they were caught on clip specifically saying IC, in a breach situation, "Oh hey, I saw an 096 pic, what do I do?" as a role that would not reasonably know such. You get the idea) -> Unless in exceptional circumstances where it's demonstrably provable that the player in question is lying about this to deliberately avoid a metagaming punishment, and is deliberately metagaming the use of this strategy as a non-combative job, or w/e - Then generally this should be fine? But I understand if this is not feasible as it could, again, be difficult to reasonably enforce, makes sits potentially too petty or some other issue I'm not thinking of. These things aren't always black-and-white.
  
  
• "Upon seeing the picture, I was instantly aware that I was going to die and therefore, as the Site's bravest Tech Expert, I valiantly ran down to HCZ to sit in the CC and boldly await my inevitable death to the very scary 096, knowing that it would be contained in exchange for my sacrifice." -> As hilarious as this is, with some thought, may actually be somewhat permissible? Dependant on certain specifics (For example, they may have serviced 096's CC IC before?), but the likelihood that they are metagaming/FailRPing and/or breaking FearRP is not insignificant. In extreme cases, may warrant a breach refund? Unsure.
  
  
• "Oh, I'm just on Chef to do some quick food cooking when I accidentally saw the 096 pic, so I headed down to the CC to get the breach over with, I'm actually in Nu-7 and know how to do this as I have done it several times." -> Metagaming, FailRP, breach refund, zero hesitation.

Again, I get the hesitancy surrounding this and understand that a new rule probably shouldn't be added - Which is why we have existing ones that sufficiently cover abuse. It's just unfortunate that this really isn't properly enforceable.

To any other 096 mains out there, I would highly encourage getting smart about keeping evidence about who the last target in the CC is. I think deliberately turning around to get someone who is approaching the CC would kinda be FailRP, unless they were already close to you? Which has happened to me several times mostly because of blast doors. For example, I've had a few breaches where both BDs were closed and as I started attacking one, I noticed targets coming down the other way - And since they're closer, IMO they're fair game to switch tack for.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

"Oh, I'm just on Chef to do some quick food cooking when I accidentally saw the 096 pic, so I headed down to the CC to get the breach over with, I'm actually in Nu-7 and know how to do this as I have done it several times." -> Metagaming, FailRP, breach refund, zero hesitation.

While I could agree to this. I must note that refunding 096 breaches is next to impossible for any staff memeber below senior admin as we cannot spawn 096 images and the case of a staff member just viewing 096 and going to their office creates an inbalanced breach as to what was offered before.

 

[Zen]

Basing this further off of my previous arguments in the thread about making this further clarification of existing rules, it doesn't particularly need to be related to noticing player movement at the time - It can relate to certain specifics surrounding what players are found to have been in the CC.

It would have to be something that could reasonably supplement in both clarifying a potential verdict (again, without pushing things too far in one direction or the other, maintaining reasonable granularity) as well as communicating what could potentially be FearRP/FailRP or some other rulebreak, with the assumption that the 096 would be the one calling the sit, with the further assumption that said 096 has some form of evidence showing that it was that(/those) specific player(s) in the CC,

Which then, again, going by what I've said previously in the thread, becomes a process of
"Does that(/Do those) players have reasonable cause to be there in that situation, in this context?" ->

• They are a DEA/MTF/GOC/Any CL3+/GenSec CL2+... Maybe Sr. Researcher, and/or whatever other jobs would reasonably go there etc., you get the idea, -> This, in all likelihood, would not be further pursued.
  
  
• They are a Janitor/Chef/Jr. Researcher/Engineer/Doctor/Civilian, etc. Generally people who would not, under normal circumstances, have the clearance, IC knowledge about 096 or otherwise to reasonably be found as 096's last target waiting in the CC -> Potential for further investigation, ->

Likely, the player in question could be brought to a sit? (Which is awkward for 096, needs a bucket, but I've had them before in cases such as bodyblocking sits) And it's found that:

• "I was ordered to after saying to a [MTF, GenSec CPT, whatever, you get the idea] that I saw an 096 pic" (Tbh, they don't need to know IC that it's an 096 pic, obviously they can say it OOC, but it could be reasonably construed to not specifically be that IC, unless they were caught on clip specifically saying IC, in a breach situation, "Oh hey, I saw an 096 pic, what do I do?" as a role that would not reasonably know such. You get the idea) -> Unless in exceptional circumstances where it's demonstrably provable that the player in question is lying about this to deliberately avoid a metagaming punishment, and is deliberately metagaming the use of this strategy as a non-combative job, or w/e - Then generally this should be fine? But I understand if this is not feasible as it could, again, be difficult to reasonably enforce, makes sits potentially too petty or some other issue I'm not thinking of. These things aren't always black-and-white.
  
  
• "Upon seeing the picture, I was instantly aware that I was going to die and therefore, as the Site's bravest Tech Expert, I valiantly ran down to HCZ to sit in the CC and boldly await my inevitable death to the very scary 096, knowing that it would be contained in exchange for my sacrifice." -> As hilarious as this is, with some thought, may actually be somewhat permissible? Dependant on certain specifics (For example, they may have serviced 096's CC IC before?), but the likelihood that they are metagaming/FailRPing and/or breaking FearRP is not insignificant. In extreme cases, may warrant a breach refund? Unsure.
  
  
• "Oh, I'm just on Chef to do some quick food cooking when I accidentally saw the 096 pic, so I headed down to the CC to get the breach over with, I'm actually in Nu-7 and know how to do this as I have done it several times." -> Metagaming, FailRP, breach refund, zero hesitation.

Again, I get the hesitancy surrounding this and understand that a new rule probably shouldn't be added - Which is why we have existing ones that sufficiently cover abuse. It's just unfortunate that this really isn't properly enforceable.

To any other 096 mains out there, I would highly encourage getting smart about keeping evidence about who the last target in the CC is. I think deliberately turning around to get someone who is approaching the CC would kinda be FailRP, unless they were already close to you? Which has happened to me several times mostly because of blast doors. For example, I've had a few breaches where both BDs were closed and as I started attacking one, I noticed targets coming down the other way - And since they're closer, IMO they're fair game to switch tack for.

With Tech Experts specifically, as far as I'm aware, on UK, they have CL3 SCP knowledge. Or at least that's what I was told by someone in SA ages ago, not sure if that's written down anywhere. I should probably write a document asking for clarification IC tbh.

 

[Rushi]

We really don't need any more micro-rules added, especially this type of rules that would be impossible and very difficult for Staff to enforce. Sometimes, it's best to keep things simple rather than overcomplicating.
Perhaps rather than adding rules, we could suggest new gameplay features for SCP-096 that could make him more interesting or more fun to play.

Moved to denied!