Give CGSF weapon checkers back

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bubba

Administrator
Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Platform Team
Donator
Dec 24, 2020
457
106
71
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Gives CGSF jobs the weapon checker

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Gives CGSF the ability to do thier job.
Allows CGSF (pd special forces) to weapon check people without needing to call the chief of police, or an FBI agent to come. (if there even is any on)


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Dont see any.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I've been told the reasoning for job's to have the weapon checker removed which I fully understand. However, I feel CGSF members should be trusted to not abuse this bug. CGSF is a whitelisted job that you have to apply for and put in lots of time and work to be accepted.

Removing the weapon checkers makes it almost impossible to find a reason to back up an arrest for anyone suspicious of carrying an illegal weapon. I mean, we can't even check anyone who flags a checkpoint until either the chief of police or an FBI agent comes to check, which by the way there are many times when those jobs are not being occupied. Removing the weapon checker removes a large amount of RP for CGSF which is supposed to be more RP involved than regular PD jobs. I understand removing the weapon checker from jobs that any player can play, but I'm not sure why it was agreed to remove it from CGSF jobs.
 

Coolioo

top bloke
Donator
Dec 24, 2020
473
5
343
91
bossman lane
They will be added back to all the correct jobs once the bug is fixed. The FBI job still having them was an oversight and we won't be adding it back to any jobs, as even just on a trust basis it isn't secure enough until it's fixed.

I'll be locking this now, I apologise for the inconvenience.

edit: This is now fixed.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Bubba
Status
Not open for further replies.