Head Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adds a "Code Blue" which resembles a major information breach to a group of unauthorized personnel. We had this code on a server I used to be department leadership on and it was a very very useful code. It helped everyone stay informed.
Examples:
- CI call D block and tell them all about SCP-008. This risks people below Clearance 4 gaining knowledge about it.
- Someone radios in about the O5 council. (and it's not a fail infobreach)
Criteria for setting Code Blue:
Some questions must be answered for calling a Code Blue.
1. Is the information being distributed to a large mass of individuals who do not contain the clearance?
2. Is the unauthorized group of individuals actively disseminating the information?
3. Is it at least a "maybe" that the site, a large section of the site, or a significant portion of the general public will require amnestics?
If yes is answered to all of them, a Code Blue may be called.
Code Heirarchy:
We all know that a Code 5 is bigger than a Code 1, and a Code 1 is bigger than a Code 2, etc.
Here is how the new hierarchy could work in highest priority to lowest priority:
1. Code 3 - Contamination Hazard
2. Code 4 - Cognitohazard Breach
3. Code 5 - Containment Breach
4. Code 1 - Intruder Alert
5. Code Blue - Information Breach
6. Code 2 - Riot Alert
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Informs the site that areas may be abnormally locked down to entry.
- Better informs people why an area may be locked down as opposed to just arguing with the people guarding it.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Some people in the site may use the code as a means to try and find out what is infobreached in an unauthorized capacity. (Though this could be added to the legal codex as like "Information 3 - Attempting to seek out information that the individual does not have access to.")
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I think this suggestion should be accepted as it lets relevant MTFs and level 4s know that there is actively something going on as soon as they get on site. They can then radio in and ask "what's going on?" or further assist with the issues. It also lets level 3s (such as IA) know that their assistance may be desperately needed to an area to help cordon it off.
Adds a "Code Blue" which resembles a major information breach to a group of unauthorized personnel. We had this code on a server I used to be department leadership on and it was a very very useful code. It helped everyone stay informed.
Examples:
- CI call D block and tell them all about SCP-008. This risks people below Clearance 4 gaining knowledge about it.
- Someone radios in about the O5 council. (and it's not a fail infobreach)
Criteria for setting Code Blue:
Some questions must be answered for calling a Code Blue.
1. Is the information being distributed to a large mass of individuals who do not contain the clearance?
2. Is the unauthorized group of individuals actively disseminating the information?
3. Is it at least a "maybe" that the site, a large section of the site, or a significant portion of the general public will require amnestics?
If yes is answered to all of them, a Code Blue may be called.
Code Heirarchy:
We all know that a Code 5 is bigger than a Code 1, and a Code 1 is bigger than a Code 2, etc.
Here is how the new hierarchy could work in highest priority to lowest priority:
1. Code 3 - Contamination Hazard
2. Code 4 - Cognitohazard Breach
3. Code 5 - Containment Breach
4. Code 1 - Intruder Alert
5. Code Blue - Information Breach
6. Code 2 - Riot Alert
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Informs the site that areas may be abnormally locked down to entry.
- Better informs people why an area may be locked down as opposed to just arguing with the people guarding it.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Some people in the site may use the code as a means to try and find out what is infobreached in an unauthorized capacity. (Though this could be added to the legal codex as like "Information 3 - Attempting to seek out information that the individual does not have access to.")
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I think this suggestion should be accepted as it lets relevant MTFs and level 4s know that there is actively something going on as soon as they get on site. They can then radio in and ask "what's going on?" or further assist with the issues. It also lets level 3s (such as IA) know that their assistance may be desperately needed to an area to help cordon it off.
- the numbering system doesn't seem to represent the importance of a code so it could just be called "Code 6"
Group Moderator