Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adjusts server rule 1.15 from:To:
Or any variation which only additionally permits Head Moderators specifically in Event Team . I wouldn't know how to word it in a way that makes sense. The general idea is to lower the minimum rank required to authorise TreasonRP in some fashion.
EDIT:
Alternatively:
Adding instead of lowering the required Staff rank, introduce whichever of SGM+ or HGM that would be satisfactory to SSL.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
There have been numerous suggestions on changing the rules either wholesale - Or relevant rules, but never anything I could find specifically focused on TreasonRP auth.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- + Increased accessibility to TreasonRP by players, which in turn may increase the day-to-day quality of RP dependant on how it is used.
- + Potentially frees up SL+ ranked Staff for more important matters.
- + Gives HMods useful experience in learning when and when not to auth TreasonRP, which may give them better understanding of handling server health matters for if and when they make it to SL.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- - Devising an alteration to 1.15 that sufficiently conveys how it can be authed without it being confusing or too long.
- - Massive abuse potential on both sides of this, which may also lead to server health issues if handled improperly.
- - Allowing greater access to TreasonRP in this way may embolden some people to go forward with ideas that aren't really great, which may be mistakenly auth'd when they otherwise shouldn't be - "I thought this would be an okay idea, didn't see any issues with it" type stuff that's distinct from more malicious abuse ala above
- - This would be extra power and responsibility for HMods that they would need to be sufficiently trained to handle out of the gate, which may put further, unnecessary restrictions in who gets that role.
- - The infrequency and low quality of TreasonRP requests as they are, are not that much of a bother to SL to reasonably warrant a change like this.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I don't usually make rule suggestions - Granted, some of my first suggestions were rule suggestions; And they were pretty ambitious. But ever since I thought more along the framework of solving problems via content changes, I haven't really made a rule suggestion change in a while. My last one was about 4.01, and I still feel the same way about that despite that specific argument having been relitigated by others in the recent past - And SSL appear to have retained the same stance on that despite what I thought was some very thorough and convincing arguments on the matter. I think it's very generous that were even allowed to suggest rule changes at all, given the various suggestions I've seen over the past couple years - All the ones relating to rules have either been... Not great, or somewhere between liked and loved, always well and thoroughly discussed - But the majority always get slammed. And I get it. You don't want to make sweeping changes, bloat the rules or otherwise risk a significant disruption to the fine balance that you've struck. This is one of those things I've thought about a little bit, because I recognise that this is one of those ideas that fall into the last of those categories.A major part of SL's whole prerogative is monitoring server health and being the part of the first line of defence where server health issues come into play; Most notably with giving the green light to specific interactions that are intended for certain situations - But are not things generally trusted to the playerbase to use whenever they so please because that kind of anarchy leads to a terrible, terrible environment.
I don't often see TreasonRP - Which makes sense, it shouldn't be a frequent or regular occurrence, but one thing I think is contributing to the decline of roleplay quality is that things like this aren't so easily approachable; I think it's more approachable with the introduction of the tickets system - But requiring SL for it I feel is a bit overkill. Compare it to other things SL minimum are needed for auth, like OSuits or valid 008 breaches. Do you see what I mean? If someone tries to do a naff TreasonRP situation that could cause issues, chances of it being as damaging to the server comparable to anything else that SL can auth, even on the lower end - I think are pretty containable.
EDIT: I've been convinced with some very good points, that this may not be appropriate for HMods. I have left the original idea and what I said up for general posterity and/or if SSL feel otherwise about it when they discuss this idea (which I don't think is likely, but the possibility, while near, is not entirely impossible) - And have also opted to go with Podidski's wonderful idea of suggesting allowing SGM+ or even just HGM to additionally auth TreasonRP alongside SL - As I agree that, after having gone over the discussion and thought about the points introduced, I am convinced that while the auth is less appropriate for HMods, I think it could reasonably be within the purview of SGM/HGM, all things considered.
Admittedly, this would only increase the amount of people that players could reach out to for TreasonRP auth by a handful (or 1 per server in the case of just HGMs), so there's definitely a question of whether or not this is worthwhile. I'll leave that up to SSL.
Last edited:
Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
