Content Suggestion Increase inspectors body armour

[absbb8]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This is just me suggesting giving more body armour to inspectors, it should be at least 50 and not like 25 like agents or operatives, investigators get like 50
at the bare minimum increase it to 50 or make it 75

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I don't think this has ever been suggested before

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
1.inspectors actually can help in code 1's and 2's without issues.
2. inspectors don't get folded like a omelette every time they get into a high risk situation (which they usually do)

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
1. Ci might have a harder time killing inspectors,
2. maybe a little unfair for d classes

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I mean ill get to the point why do inspectors have a player models with heavy armour if all they get is 25 armour doesn't make sense, I get they also have suit models but in general the low amount of body armour really is a general inconvenient thing that can help ISD, even if its just a little bit

 

[Vxnt]

The way it was worded was that they couldn't seek out combat with raids and breaches. They were always allowed to seek out combat in regards to things like D-class and Foundation staff. Unfortunately, many people, including members of SL at the time, were unable to actually read and did not understand this.

Gosh why do you have to argue with everyone dude, even when a CS speaks to you about it

Regardless, commenting to say after reading other responses yeah +support, it does make sense in retrospect :steamhappy:

 

[Zen]

Gosh why do you have to argue with everyone dude, even when a CS speaks to you about it

Regardless, commenting to say after reading other responses yeah +support, it does make sense in retrospect :steamhappy:

I'm informing him what happened with the whole thing. At the time, I had even admins and whatever telling me incorrect things about that rule, and when I asked for clarification from @Auburn who was SSL at the time, iirc he said something along the lines of "You'd have to be an idiot to misread that".