Rule Suggestion Emilia's "solution" to the """912 problem"""

[Emilia Foddg]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:​

Add something to the Specific Guidelines under 1.12 Realistic Equipment Use about unrealistic/unreasonable (ab)uses of 912 by GenSec, that would constitute a reasonable boundary for the use of 912, which can then be enforced at moderator discretion.

Basically just state that the deployment of 912 by GenSec is subject to 1.12 and give one or two examples of GenSec basically abusing 912, such as sending him into Inner D-Block when it's literally only one D-Class that's obviously armed and shooting at them.

EDIT 2:
ALTERNATIVELY -
Restrict the deployment (or authorisation of deployment) of 912 to GenSec SGT+

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:​

There are numerous prior and active suggestions asking for 912-related rule changes. This is attempting to solve their problems in a different way, by asking for a general stipulation as part of the Realistic Equipment Use rule (or by limiting who can deploy 912).

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

• + Allows GenSec to be held accountable by moderation if they abuse the fact that 912 is basically invincible to deal with D-Class situations that didn't necessarily warrant the use of 912
  
  
• + Improves D-Class/GenSec gameplay balance via discouragement of 912 abuse
  
  
• + Gives Staff something to point to when dealing with 912 abuses
  
  
• + In line with other examples of things restricted by 1.12
  
  
• EDIT 2: + A sensible restriction.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

• - Time and effort devising effective wording that properly conveys what GenSec players shouldn't do regarding 912, while being flexible and leaving minimal room for loopholes/misunderstandings[
  
  
• - Misuse of the rule causing punishments for what should otherwise not be punished
  
  
• - A 'chilling effect' of sorts on the usage of 912 by GenSec, potentially leading them to not use 912 in situations where they reasonably could have
  
  
• EDIT: - The decided limitation is inappropriate
  
  
• EDIT 2: - Since 912 being sent into Inner D-Block would require a SGT+, 912 gameplay when there isn't one may end up being frustrating/boring when not allowed to enter D-Block

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

As I keep saying. Add 912 to Realistic Equipment Use. There are apparently a lot of situations cropping up where GenSec send in 912 for reasons that many consider inappropriate. The fact of the matter is, from a D-Class perspective, 912 is basically invincible. Not unstoppable in all situations, but for the most part, carries a massive advantage due to what are basically OOC mechanics being used to GenSec's advantage. In a realistic situation, you would not constantly send in 912 for every little thing, for fear of irreparable damage.

Barring any kind of content change that would balance out this interaction and take away the unfair advantage (Which I think would be pretty difficult to do, since 912 is a breachable SCP, so I don't know how you could do something about this content-wise in a way that would unfairly affect his breach), I think a rule change is necessary here to provide some kind of accountability regarding this specific series of interactions and restore balance to D-Class - Which, and I bring this up every time I make a D-Class related suggestion, is the intended starting point of the server.

I think that the way things are now is actually pretty detrimental to new players joining the community and learning how the server works; If they were basically subjected to GenSec throwing 912 at them for something like there being only one gun in D-Block or sometihng dumb like that - And they take it to a sit and can't get anything done about it. I don't think the way things are now is conducive to fostering player growth.

MTFs are not allowed to use AA-obtained equipment on humans and rocket launchers can only be used against vehicles (by humans) - But GenSec get to freely use 912 as they please? Make it make sense.

EDIT 2: After some private discussion, I've added this alternative option that may be more to everyone's liking (except 912 players )

 

[Speff]

-support

Solid suggestion but what "reasonable boundary" are you gonna set? Sure it can be up to SL but that's extremely vague, and we already have a quite clear boundary: A Code 2. Unlike with AA auth being correlated to the amount of SCPs breached, we cannot say how many D-class have guns, which means the only real "boundary" is, again, a code 2.

Now, if you are suggesting that authorization for 912 auth is set to a certain level within GSD, i'll give u a +/- support on that, but a simple "boundary that SL set" is extremely problematic (suddenly captains are getting warned because only 7 d class had guns instead of 10???).

Also you say "what GenSec players shouldn't do regarding 912". When we send in 912, his only job is to beat d-class with guns to death. It's that simple. Anything else wouldn't make any sense: Cuffing d-class with random contraband would take forever and would lead to just mass d class cuffing; if he tried to cuff people with guns instead of beating them, well at that point we might as well just send 999 in.

 

[Willaim Lingerson]

-support

Solid suggestion but what "reasonable boundary" are you gonna set? Sure it can be up to SL but that's extremely vague, and we already have a quite clear boundary: A Code 2. Unlike with AA auth being correlated to the amount of SCPs breached, we cannot say how many D-class have guns, which means the only real "boundary" is, again, a code 2.

Now, if you are suggesting that authorization for 912 auth is set to a certain level within GSD, i'll give u a +/- support on that, but a simple "boundary that SL set" is extremely problematic (suddenly captains are getting warned because only 7 d class had guns instead of 10???).

Also you say "what GenSec players shouldn't do regarding 912". When we send in 912, his only job is to beat d-class with guns to death. It's that simple. Anything else wouldn't make any sense: Cuffing d-class with random contraband would take forever and would lead to just mass d class cuffing; if he tried to cuff people with guns instead of beating them, well at that point we might as well just send 999 in.

Speff yall just dont wanna lose ur big buff boi

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Exceedingly rare Speff L.

Solid suggestion but what "reasonable boundary" are you gonna set? Sure it can be up to SL but that's extremely vague, and we already have a quite clear boundary: A Code 2. Unlike with AA auth being correlated to the amount of SCPs breached, we cannot say how many D-class have guns, which means the only real "boundary" is, again, a code 2.

First off, I don't know where you're getting SL from, since rule suggestions are resolved by SSL+ and I never specify any Staff threshold for deciding anything other than leaving the actual enforcement up to moderator discretion.

Secondly, vaguely saying just "a code 2" is clearly not good enough as it's clearly resulted in backlash from the community who are clearly experiencing or witnessing GenSec flagrantly abuse 912 for their own benefit with no mechanism for recourse because even though it's the kind of situation where 912 was clearly not needed, having a C2 active means you can just sidestep those reasonable boundaries in the first place.

Thirdly, my comparison to AA weaponry restrictions is because of the force equivalence. You're not allowed to grab nerve gas to deal with a C1, but you are allowed to toss 912 at the slightest problem that occurs in D-Block so long as you consider it a C2. Both things are possible and unfair, but only one is consistently punishable by the rules.

Now, if you are suggesting that authorization for 912 auth is set to a certain level within GSD, i'll give u a +/- support on that, but a simple "boundary that SL set" is extremely problematic (suddenly captains are getting warned because only 7 d class had guns instead of 10???).

This to me just sounds like that you don't trust SSL+ with determining an appropriate limitation, and would rather be allowed to continue abusing the fact that 912 is functionally invincible to curbstomp literally any level of unrest within D-Block. If the situation is obviously one where 912 was absolutely not necessary and you send 912 in, that's when you deserve at least a verbal, IMO. I cannot stress enough that you are only able to do this because 912 isn't something that's destructible by D-Class. Sure, they can capture it if they get a beam and work together, but this is D-Block we're talking about. It's been done, but in general, they're not gonna be cohesive enough to do that. And it's because of those things, that you can safely send 912 in to do that without consequence.

If it were down to me, I'd make 912 terminable even when not breached so that you actually have a risk to doing this - But the problem there is that curbsides 912's breach.

I will add to the OP the possibility of SSL setting an inappropriate limitation, though.

Also you say "what GenSec players shouldn't do regarding 912". When we send in 912, his only job is to beat d-class with guns to death. It's that simple. Anything else wouldn't make any sense: Cuffing d-class with random contraband would take forever and would lead to just mass d class cuffing; if he tried to cuff people with guns instead of beating them, well at that point we might as well just send 999 in.

...Or, you know, don't send in 912 when the situation doesn't warrant it? I don't get what part of that was unclear.

 

[Speff]

Exceedingly rare Speff L.

First off, I don't know where you're getting SL from, since rule suggestions are resolved by SSL+ and I never specify any Staff threshold for deciding anything other than leaving the actual enforcement up to moderator discretion.

Secondly, vaguely saying just "a code 2" is clearly not good enough as it's clearly resulted in backlash from the community who are clearly experiencing or witnessing GenSec flagrantly abuse 912 for their own benefit with no mechanism for recourse because even though it's the kind of situation where 912 was clearly not needed, having a C2 active means you can just sidestep those reasonable boundaries in the first place.

Thirdly, my comparison to AA weaponry restrictions is because of the force equivalence. You're not allowed to grab nerve gas to deal with a C1, but you are allowed to toss 912 at the slightest problem that occurs in D-Block so long as you consider it a C2. Both things are possible and unfair, but only one is consistently punishable by the rules.

firstly mb i mainly just said SL referring to the out of character server leadership in general, not in relation to your post or this specific case

Also I 100% agree but this is an in character issue? If GSD has been calling out false Code 2's, then you need to report them to ISD. I don't know what's going on in the UK server, but ISD just had a huge meeting and announcement ordering that they will be cracking down severely on false Code 2's, with site admin notifying GSD and us captains telling us this. And if ISD won't do anything, then you bring this up to admins, as if somebody is repeatedly calling false codes then you can try and get them warned for NITRP. But again, I don't see why this would even have to be brought up to admins - I've issues numerous job bans to GSD who call out Code 2's for no reason and I'm sure captains on UK site have done so as well. This isn't an out of character issue that requires 912 to be changed fundamentally, this is an in character issue on GENSEC calling false Code 2's. And again, this is punishable by the rules, both in and out of character.

This to me just sounds like that you don't trust SSL+ with determining an appropriate limitation, and would rather be allowed to continue abusing the fact that 912 is functionally invincible to curbstomp literally any level of unrest within D-Block. If the situation is obviously one where 912 was absolutely not necessary and you send 912 in, that's when you deserve at least a verbal, IMO. I cannot stress enough that you are only able to do this because 912 isn't something that's destructible by D-Class. Sure, they can capture it if they get a beam and work together, but this is D-Block we're talking about. It's been done, but in general, they're not gonna be cohesive enough to do that. And it's because of those things, that you can safely send 912 in to do that without consequence.

It's not that I don't trust SSL+ with an appropriate limitation, I just don't know that a limitation even exists. As I said, unlike SCPs, you can't tell how severe a riot is exactly. You can count the amount of SCPs breached and their location (which, at least in the US server, determines the status of AA auth), but you can't count the amount of D-class who have weapons. And other than the amount of D-class who have weapons, I don't know what could possibly be a measure of the severity of a riot. GSD deathcount? # of D-class that have escaped?

...Or, you know, don't send in 912 when the situation doesn't warrant it? I don't get what part of that was unclear.

If a GSD sends in 912 or 912 enters D-block without a Code 2, the GSD or 912 in question is usually instantly given a warning (or a verbal if they are new) by staff.

Along with this, bBy the US Security Department handbook, a Code 2 can be called if:

- 5 or more D-Class have pistols
- 3 or more D-Class are armed with heavy weapons
- An outside intruder is arming D-Class
- A Hostile Type Blue is detected in D-Block.

All of these, I believe warrant 912 entering D-block. If a Code 2 is called that is not validated by one of these being true (or wtvr it is on UK site), then you report it to ISD and/or the department heads and the person who called the code will be arrested. I don't think making further limitations on 912 is necessary just because some officers are calling random Code 2's and not dealing with them. Otherwise half of the issues in the Code of Ethics would be server rules and not in character ethical rules.