Rule Suggestion Change it so that "private" internal communications channels are treated as "addressed to" vs "encrypted"

[Ratman99]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Makes it so the private internal channels, eg <E-11-Nu-7> are treated as addressed to, not private between addressor and addressee so the information is actionable by people in the overarching comms channel/s. NOTE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH O-COMMS

Edit: Another example to make it clear(er), if someone were to go <CL4> 008 is out, in CL3 comms, every CL3 can see it and take action on it, vs now where only CL4 can see it. So <XX> becomes a formal way to format a address to a specific thing vs actually being treated as private between the addressor and addressee as is now.

<br>Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I dont think so
<br>Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Will cut down on meta bait
Will cut down on comms clutter
May make role play to do with communications more interesting
<br>Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
It may make private comms a bit more of a hassle until people adjust to it.
<br>Based on the Positives &amp; Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I believe switching <xx-xx> in c comm to be a formalized address system vs a "treated as encrypted" between assessor and addressee would cut down on meta-bait and other iffy behavior, if someone wants a private chat, they can do it in person, set up a radio freq or use a phone, rather than use /c <me-you> "Lets breech 008".

 

[Emilia Fοddg]

...What?

 

[Rion]

I believe he wants the "private" comms to actually be private so only SOP and CI can see their comms message thing they do in open comms

 

[YandereMuffin]

Make it so the private internal channels, eg <E-11-Nu-7> are treated as addressed to, not fully private so the information is actionable by people in the overarching comms channel/s. NOTE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH O-COMMS

So just like an E-11 saying "/oc Hello Nu-7, Can you do XYZ for us?" instead of "/c <E-11 - Nu-7> Can you do XYZ for us?"

This is very confusingly written in my opinion.

 

[Ratman99]

So just like an E-11 saying "/oc Hello Nu-7, Can you do XYZ for us?" instead of "/c <E-11 - Nu-7> Can you do XYZ for us?"

This is very confusingly written in my opinion.

its confusing for me to explain, but i dont think we have defined it. As i have made you understand in DM's this is more for public benefit plus a picture:


This is what i am referring to [picture <SOP>], now granted i have a problem with this, but my suggestion initially excluded O-comms, more to mean the set up channels between GOI to talk privately. So for simplicity i am keeping it to /c comms. (in this explanation)

I think everyone should be able to see anything written in the comm lines they have access to, the whole <XXX> Encryption thing should just be treated as a formalized address system vs "we cant see it ICly". I have seen people metabait on it, use these when they have private channels etc etc. Like a CL4 addressing CL4's on CL3 comms, A1 used to do the "add them to the list" meme in /c etc etc. For IC comms (PM's are OOC), you have, a phone you can ring, you can summon them to a location to talk in person, or ring a office etc if you want a private chat vs using /c <me-you>.


Now in the picture example, i think O-comms should be reserved only if used from a X to Y, so if someone does this[as shown in picture], everyone who has access to open comms should be able to see it ICly, he could have just used /sop to talk on SOP comms.