What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion is similar in vein to this suggestion here, but since I can't find a similar suggestion & no recent job ban changes have been made, I think the "work in progress changes" aren't coming, or never existed in the first place.
Core additions:
+ Add the ability to use STEAMID in the various job ban commands instead of having to look at the players
+ Add the ability for job bans to be indefinite to represent a blacklist, instead of a maximum duration of two months
(Alternative) Add a dedicated blacklist command that does this, in order to separate it from normal jobbans. This command could be WL to only director jobs.
+ Add the ability for job bans to take effect even when a player is offline, to be applied when they next join the server
Nice optional QoL changes that would be appreciated, but not really needed:
+ Add the ability for the commands to automatically translate times (Ex: instead of typing 10080 for a 1-day ban, you can type 1d. Or instead of 60, 1h.)
+ Add in a punishment logging system that directors can access that records a log of who used the job ban command, on what person, and for how long
+ Add the ability to append a reason when banning someone. It'll show in chat next to the notification and time of the ban.
+ Have it so that if someone attempts to join the job while banned, the game will show them their ban reason, the time they have left, and who banned them in order for the player to submit an appeal.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Alright, so the current implementation of the job ban command is a bit lacking. It serves its purpose well enough but doesn't have nearly the level of control that the MTF regiment tools offer. Its execution leaves much to be desired, requiring a person to physically look at and type out a command in order to issue a job ban. If that person has left the game, then you are out of luck. Since job bans are OOC, staff intervention is often required to successfully issue a ban, since it's pretty difficult to track someone down, hold them in place, and then type the command before they do something like swap jobs or leave. And if they do, now you need to have an admin sit, record and upload evidence, and go through that whole shtick. It just sucks. It works, yes, but it sucks.
The proposed changes seek to rectify the issues I've laid out. First & foremost, by allowing offline bans and enabling the use of STEAMIDs, it gives the department leader the flexibility to issue bans on rule-breakers using evidence given to them after the fact. To use an example, someone may submit a clip of an agent breaking department rules but said agent might be long gone by the time anyone joins to handle it. Currently, if this occurs, there is no way to punish this agent. We have no proof of LTAP for staff, and unless the clip shows a server rule break then it's unlikely staff can intervene and issue a server ban (If they are even willing to dig through connection logs to find the STEAMID of the person, in my experience this is not likely).
However, with the proposed changes, training logs can be used to extract the agent's STEAMID and a job ban can be issued for when they next join the server, ensuring the bad behavior is nipped in the bud. No longer will we have to just hope that they rejoin sometime later so we can ban them.
It is important to note that site administrators do have the ability to issue bans on behalf of department leaders. However, these abilities are not exercised much unless the offender directly involves themselves with site leadership in some manner. EC, SA, and 05 don't want to go chasing down people to ban them as much as we don't want to.
tl;dr
offline bans & steamID bans would enable department leaders to remove troublesome department members at will instead of having to use staff intervention or chase them down themselves (assuming they haven't left yet)
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I suppose a department leader could do a lot of damage with these commands if they wanted to go out in style.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Nobody likes doctors who minge, IA agents who minge, DEA agents who minge, or GSD that minge. Giving department leaders the tools to properly police their departments is important in ensuring a high level of quality RP exists on site.
This suggestion is similar in vein to this suggestion here, but since I can't find a similar suggestion & no recent job ban changes have been made, I think the "work in progress changes" aren't coming, or never existed in the first place.
Core additions:
+ Add the ability to use STEAMID in the various job ban commands instead of having to look at the players
+ Add the ability for job bans to be indefinite to represent a blacklist, instead of a maximum duration of two months
(Alternative) Add a dedicated blacklist command that does this, in order to separate it from normal jobbans. This command could be WL to only director jobs.
+ Add the ability for job bans to take effect even when a player is offline, to be applied when they next join the server
Nice optional QoL changes that would be appreciated, but not really needed:
+ Add the ability for the commands to automatically translate times (Ex: instead of typing 10080 for a 1-day ban, you can type 1d. Or instead of 60, 1h.)
+ Add in a punishment logging system that directors can access that records a log of who used the job ban command, on what person, and for how long
+ Add the ability to append a reason when banning someone. It'll show in chat next to the notification and time of the ban.
+ Have it so that if someone attempts to join the job while banned, the game will show them their ban reason, the time they have left, and who banned them in order for the player to submit an appeal.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Alright, so the current implementation of the job ban command is a bit lacking. It serves its purpose well enough but doesn't have nearly the level of control that the MTF regiment tools offer. Its execution leaves much to be desired, requiring a person to physically look at and type out a command in order to issue a job ban. If that person has left the game, then you are out of luck. Since job bans are OOC, staff intervention is often required to successfully issue a ban, since it's pretty difficult to track someone down, hold them in place, and then type the command before they do something like swap jobs or leave. And if they do, now you need to have an admin sit, record and upload evidence, and go through that whole shtick. It just sucks. It works, yes, but it sucks.
The proposed changes seek to rectify the issues I've laid out. First & foremost, by allowing offline bans and enabling the use of STEAMIDs, it gives the department leader the flexibility to issue bans on rule-breakers using evidence given to them after the fact. To use an example, someone may submit a clip of an agent breaking department rules but said agent might be long gone by the time anyone joins to handle it. Currently, if this occurs, there is no way to punish this agent. We have no proof of LTAP for staff, and unless the clip shows a server rule break then it's unlikely staff can intervene and issue a server ban (If they are even willing to dig through connection logs to find the STEAMID of the person, in my experience this is not likely).
However, with the proposed changes, training logs can be used to extract the agent's STEAMID and a job ban can be issued for when they next join the server, ensuring the bad behavior is nipped in the bud. No longer will we have to just hope that they rejoin sometime later so we can ban them.
It is important to note that site administrators do have the ability to issue bans on behalf of department leaders. However, these abilities are not exercised much unless the offender directly involves themselves with site leadership in some manner. EC, SA, and 05 don't want to go chasing down people to ban them as much as we don't want to.
tl;dr
offline bans & steamID bans would enable department leaders to remove troublesome department members at will instead of having to use staff intervention or chase them down themselves (assuming they haven't left yet)
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I suppose a department leader could do a lot of damage with these commands if they wanted to go out in style.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Nobody likes doctors who minge, IA agents who minge, DEA agents who minge, or GSD that minge. Giving department leaders the tools to properly police their departments is important in ensuring a high level of quality RP exists on site.
inb4 suggestion denied because they denied a similar one 3 months ago because "it's being worked on"
Last edited:
Donator