Denied FailRP for IA to ignore CoE / CoC violations

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kito

Kito

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter Anomalous Artist
Oct 11, 2022
366
58
111
21
Kentucky
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Makes a rule clarification that disallows Internal Affairs from blatantly ignoring CoE, CoC, or Legal Codex violations, such as turning around while someone is murdered, or allowing GENSEC to kill Class-D personnel without warning.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+ Code of Ethics the Ethics Committee writes is actually used
+ Code of Conduct the Overseer Council writes is actually used
+ Better Class-D / GSD RP since warnings would become far more enforced by IA
+ IA is actually required to do their job rather than being belittled for enforcing it or being "chill" by ignoring it

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- New IA agents might not know the CoE or CoC well and inadvertently ignore it, but this can be fixed by a simple acknowledgement on their part
- MTF cant camp inside D-Block when IA is checking for them
- IA might not be able to enforce the CoC or CoE with low numbers

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I've seen GENSEC become much more batant with their CoC / CoE violations, with them instantly shooting D-Class on catwalk and in airlock without warning or reason, while IA watches and sometimes helps, making the one and only department on the server entirely dedicated to enforcing the CoE, CoC and Legal Codex go directly against it.

I also feel as though Site Admin, the Ethics Committee, and the Overseer Council seem to not care about such a large part of the in-character rules, with it being completely unenforced in almost every reguard, since IA has almost no power, both ISD MTFs are more focused on body guarding, and no GENSEC or other department lead will even attempt to enforce it, this includes most if not all MTF Command teams.

While I don't know the state of every MTF Commander, ECM, or Overseer, I can definitely tell that the CoE, CoC, and Legal Codex is being almost entirely ignored, with GENSEC being the prime example of it. I remember making a suggestion that it should be failRP for anyone Clearance 3 or higher to break the CoC / CoE without reason, and it was denied, but I believe IA should be required to enforce the CoE / CoC, since it's their only goal as a department.
 
Upvote -20 Downvote
Merrick Travolta

Merrick Travolta

Head Moderator
Head Moderator
SCP-RP Staff
Platform Team
One Year Club Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Oct 18, 2023
252
63
61
-Support

Any Internal Affairs can sometimes forget what is on the FLC (I can see this as a problem in both UK and USA).

Internal Affairs while they should be arresting most if not all violations, It's usually a case of picking your battles.

I have no idea if you've ever played IA. I'm gonna assume you haven't given I feel no actual IA player would want this.

Let them create RP by becoming corrupt and "turning a blind eye".
 
Remmy

Remmy

CC Executive VIP
Donator
Three Year Club Case Cracker Community Engager Conversation Starter
Dec 24, 2020
431
1
180
111
If ever there was a cope suggestion…

We should not be enforcing that Agents cannot “ignore” FLC violations via the rules. They can be punished in character for doing so already, and this has the capacity to harm planned RP scenarios. And I put it to you to define what is and isn’t a violation of this rule.

I entirely disagree with the notion that IA has no power. They are one of the most protected groups of individuals on site in terms of ability and resources to perform their role. They additionally have the full backing of the Ethics Committee as a department.

The CoE and CoC don’t exist on UK, I’m unsure if that’s a legacy US thing, but we’ve merged both into the FLC which is used regularly.

No IA Director or player with half a brain will want this rule in place.

-Support
 
  • Like
Reactions: caramelalpaca
cityismy

cityismy

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
May 10, 2023
965
1
295
61
No.
Why not? You may ask
Firstly there are no such things as the "Code of Ethics" nor "Code of Conduct," the Internal Security Department (Formerly internal affairs) enforces the foundation legal codex.
Secondly a core part of the roleplay that players of the department can partake in is being corrupt, if sometimes they weren't corrupt the department would be doing the people they interact with and the entire serious RP setting of the server a disservice, Internal Security are meant to be the police force of the foundation, corruption and turning a blind eye to offences, taking bribes, being nepotistic and such are all in character things and should be dealt with as such, your belief that they shouldn't be able to do such shows how much of a moron you are being at the moment, you do not understand what makes roleplay good and enjoyable, I implore you to re-evaluate this suggestion.
Thirdly if this were being enforced if an agent accidentally ignored or didn't see something they could be taken to a sit by a uninvolved third party and be warned for simply not noticing something, this would be entirely abhorrent.

Every single day people want to reduce this server to some bullshit with no roleplay and no fun, it doesn't help when members of the community are making suggestions like this.
Please stop
 
Vizoplez

Vizoplez

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Chemical Weaponry
Dec 10, 2022
64
5
91
NO.

Shitty cope suggestion.

Back in my day (I used to be an IA Ambassador), we'd do super cool things for Ethics/O5's like taking event-critical roles that required us to break the FLC/etc. The problem is, is that these days most roleplayers on SCPRP are dogslop.

You cannot convince me this is a rule issue, and NOT a player issue. Maybe if SL finally made it so we don't have to give a guaranteed pass to people (if you fail the test we're supposed to tell you the correct answers, explain, and then re-try), this wouldn't be an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom