Denied Allow MTF COs/REGCOM to use codenames only

[ArcherOfLegend]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Adjust this rule:

• Code names should be 1 word, and must also be a real word or place name. Portmanteaus are also allowed, however within SL discretion as to what is allowed within a portmanteau name.
• Names must also be sensible, meaning don't use "unrealistic" names, codenames or portmanteau names.
• You are prohibited from including double quotations (" ") and may only include singular quotations (' ') in your codename.

The exception to the above are for all CL5 keycard holders, (F/GOC/CI) who may have a longer codename without a real name/standalone name

e.g:
'The Founder'
'The Arbiter'

MTFs Omega-1, Alpha-1, Chaos Insurgency (DELCOM -> MCOM), and UNGOC (LT -> MAJ) can have a codename without a first and or last name.
e.g:
'Scripture'
'Blackwater'

to now say:

• Code names should be 1 word, and must also be a real word or place name. Portmanteaus are also allowed, however within SL discretion as to what is allowed within a portmanteau name.
• Names must also be sensible, meaning don't use "unrealistic" names, codenames or portmanteau names.
• You are prohibited from including double quotations (" ") and may only include singular quotations (' ') in your codename.

The exception to the above are for all CL5 keycard holders, (F/GOC/CI) who may have a longer codename without a real name/standalone name

e.g:
'The Founder'
'The Arbiter'

MTFs Alpha-1, Omega-1, and Nu-7/E-11 COs, Chaos Insurgency (DELCOM -> MCOM), and UNGOC (LT -> MAJ) can have a codename without a first and or last name.
e.g:
'Scripture'
'Blackwater'

All of AO can continue as they are with PVTs to COM using codenames only, this only adds E-11/Nu-7 COs (or REGCOM) to the exception.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Probably, probably not, Forum search system is tough to use.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Allows MTF COs to stand out more.
- Would make sense for the E-11/Nu-7 COs to conceal their identity as they are leaders of their regiments and thus become targets.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Can't really think of any besides that it might take away the mystique of only having a codename?

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

As far as I can tell, this used to be the case in the past but then was changed for some reason. Generally, I do not see the issue of letting COs (or REGCOM if SSL aren't convinced COs should) have only codenames. They're important members of their regiments and having a singular name as a codename allows them to be easily identifiable, furthermore, allowing them to conceal their identity (at least, retroactively) would allow for some more interesting roleplay opportunities. These are the leaders of elite task forces, not average soldiers.

Would this apply to other departments? No. This rule suggestion is to only extend the code name change to E-11 and Nu-7 COs. This means that this would not extend to the other departments such as DEA or ISD.

Any objections? Make them heard in the replies. I would love to hear from SL/SSL specifically as to why they would support or oppose this addition.

 

[Advil Smith]

-support
E-11 and Nu-7 aren’t evil enough

 

[MaxoMaxoMaxo]

-support just doesn’t make any sense tbf

 

[Kisuke]

-Support, completely unnecessary

 

[ArcherOfLegend]

-support just doesn’t make any sense tbf

It also doesn't make much sense for DELCOMs or GOC LTs to be exempt but here we are.

 

[MaxoMaxoMaxo]

It also doesn't make much sense for DELCOMs or GOC LTs to be exempt but here we are.

nu-7/e-11 aren’t meant to be redacted regiments, they’re meant to be public facing. im not gonna speak on GOI’s because that’s not what this suggestion is about, but A/O code names are redacted because they aren’t meant to be a public facing role. they’re meant to serve in the shadows, acting on behalf of their respective CL5 body. what lore reason would there be to having code names? why would the names of nu-7/e-11 co’s be redacted? i don’t think ‘high value target’ is enough of an excuse here.

 

[ArcherOfLegend]

nu-7/e-11 aren’t meant to be redacted regiments, they’re meant to be public facing. im not gonna speak on GOI’s because that’s not what this suggestion is about, but A/O code names are redacted because they aren’t meant to be a public facing role. they’re meant to serve in the shadows, acting on behalf of their respective CL5 body. what lore reason would there be to having code names? why would the names of nu-7/e-11 co’s be redacted? i don’t think ‘high value target’ is enough of an excuse here.

The aim isnt to redact the identity of the COs but rather give them the option to present with a codename instead of being forced into a name.

 

[Harvey Bridger]

The aim isnt to redact the identity of the COs but rather give them the option to present with a codename instead of being forced into a name.

They can have a codename already, one that links to their character, alongside a name. This woudl just make them shadows hiding behind a singular word, which is very secretiveve and really for no reason as they are both regular regiemnts, who have nothing to hide.

 

[Aurelius 'Fusilli']

AO have codenames as their personnel files are redacted, therefore adding to the secretiveness of the respective regiments.
On the other hand, E-11 and Nu-7 CO personnel files are not as redacted as any of the AO's personnel files, therefore not making sense to just change from having a full name to only a codename. Their purpose is clear to the Foundation, contain SCPs/fight GOIs, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Niox]

+/-Support

Degrades the secrecy/uniqueness that AO has with such inside the Foundation,
Neutral though because remove AO, and it would make sense for REGCOM.

 

[Charles "Ze" Whitmee]

+Support

Sure, why not.
At most this would just have the full name not shown on comms and keycard unless you're using names above heads IC.
Want to know the full name of someone not redacted? Ask em.

 

[Shinan]

nu-7/e-11 aren’t meant to be redacted regiments, they’re meant to be public facing. im not gonna speak on GOI’s because that’s not what this suggestion is about, but A/O code names are redacted because they aren’t meant to be a public facing role. they’re meant to serve in the shadows, acting on behalf of their respective CL5 body. what lore reason would there be to having code names? why would the names of nu-7/e-11 co’s be redacted? i don’t think ‘high value target’ is enough of an excuse here.

I mean, depends on what lore we go from. In actual SCP lore, E-11 is rather classified and they answer to Alpha-1 directly. But I suppose since in our version, E-11 don't know about Alpha-1, so we can assume they aren't the same canon universe as the actual SCP verse... But I agree, I don't think high value targets is enough to give them classified names etc when we consider the lore of Site-65

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

Remove all rules regarding codenames, have it be an IC matter.

This gives Site-Admin and the respective CO teams more liberty on who'se identities they feel like should be protected, and will hopefully introduce the sense that codenames should be for the protection of ones' identity, not for the gimmick.

 

['Clank']

- Support

I mean it's just obvious why not. Also kinda funny the timing this was posted.

In my opinion this takes away from AO and Nu-7/E-11 just make no sense for that to happen, they are more public, unredacted regiments.

 

[Evender Krennic]

-support

AO only uses codenames because they are redacted regiments; Nu7 and E11 are not.

 

[James V]

-support
With the grounds you have given may as well extend it to Dpt leads also

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Degrades the secrecy/uniqueness that AO has with such inside the Foundation

In my opinion this takes away from AO

MTFs Alpha-1, Omega-1, and Nu-7/E-11 COs, Chaos Insurgency (DELCOM -> MCOM), and UNGOC (LT -> MAJ) can have a codename without a first and or last name.
[...]
All of AO can continue as they are with PVTs to COM using codenames only, this only adds E-11/Nu-7 COs (or REGCOM) to the exception.

...What is being taken away from AO exactly? That they're the only special bois that get to have only codenames? ...Womp womp, I guess? AO have plenty else going for them, but god forbid we make them not the only ones that get to have special codenames. That's incredibly petty.

---

nu-7/e-11 aren’t meant to be redacted regiments, they’re meant to be public facing. im not gonna speak on GOI’s because that’s not what this suggestion is about, but A/O code names are redacted because they aren’t meant to be a public facing role. they’re meant to serve in the shadows, acting on behalf of their respective CL5 body. what lore reason would there be to having code names? why would the names of nu-7/e-11 co’s be redacted? i don’t think ‘high value target’ is enough of an excuse here.

"Ah yes, here we have LT. John 'Epsilon' Eleven, clearance level 4 and knows all of the things, very public figure with very valuable intel."

Why would you not have this option? E-11 as a whole deal with very highly classified information and objects even internally - And the CO team even more so. It'd be a bit like having ya boi LT. John Soldier with special clearance (...And... IDK, give them the fucking presidential football or something) casually walk the streets of SoCal amongst billboards that state their full name, face and some vague details about what they do and/or what information they may or may not have access to. High-value target is more than enough of an excuse, IMO.

The codename changes are IMO one of the worst and most needlessly restricting changes made in the past few years that I kind of understand to a small extent, from a gameplay/moderation perspective? But I feel makes zero sense otherwise.

Honestly, I feel that this change doesn't go far enough. I think any CL4 should be able to go by only a codename if they so wish, by sheer virtue of the value of what they have access to. Reminder that every single job that spawns with a CL4 theoretically has direct access to 008, among other things. Not to say that a consultant or ISD investigator is often going to reasonably be in a position that they can directly use that access in a non-FailRP way - But the point stands.

+Overwhelming Support


But the final wording would probably end up looking something like:

MTFs Alpha-1/Omega-1 (All ranks), Nu-7/E-11 (LT -> COM), Chaos Insurgency (DELCOM -> MCOM), and UNGOC (LT -> MAJ) can have a codename without a first and or last name.

Consistent with what's already there, as well as being more concise and less ambiguous (I imagine the wording you gave confused some of the people here and has mistakenly given the impression that you want it removed from AO PVT -> CSG, which is clearly not the case).

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

let all cl4 have codename only

 

[Jimothy"Hamster"]

+support
Dont think it really matters if ppl decide to have just a codename, especially REGCOM. They are highly valuable individuals and often targetted for kidnaps due to their rank, and so having their full name plastered on their cards would be very bad i think

 

[Vxnt]

I dont really care if this is or is not a thing, at the end of the day its literally just a name in a game and I dont think it should be that deep. They should be allowed it if it makes sense for their character to be referred to it as such

so if it becomes a thing, make it part of like a pac approval process or smth, make them submit lore