Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
In terms of pure implementation, this suggestion seeks to add two things under a similar umbrella - Really this kind of counts as two suggestions and if you want me to do them one at a time, let me know and I will happily remove one, but these things, while abstract in how i present them, are conceptually rather simple and even though they serve different, if not intersecting purposes, they still relate to the same things:My thinking is that it would look like the way the current disguise card setup looks - An information box. Instead of disguise information, a user can create pages of information on the card, that they fill out as they please. Each page can then be signed (ala document signing) by trusted roles with authority, as a way of authenticating the contents of that section. By default, this signature will last until the user changes that section - But optionally, they would be able to set it to last until that person dies/flags off.
From the perspective of the user holding this out, they can flip between what pages of the card are showing or open the edit dialogue, to change the contents of a page and save it.
From the perspective of another person seeing someone hold this out, they would see the card, with the contents of whatever page the user has it currently set to. The contents must include the signature, if one has been given.
For a page to be signed, the user would have to approach someone (of any of the roles that would be ultimately determined to able to sign this). I'm not entirely sure about the exact procedure - Of how this would need to work for it to make sense and be reasonably implementable, but my thinking is - You could have the user, in edit dialogue, have the ability to give a basic yes/no prompt to the other person, kinda like the trade prompt? And if they say yes, then that page of the card gets signed, with their signature appearing on it. You could expand on it a little bit and have like the signature style options dropdown as part of the yes/no prompt, to make it a bit more like document signatures? But I would save worrying about the form for after the functionality is down pat and triage of the system is successful.
In short:
From the perspective of the user holding this out, they can flip between what pages of the card are showing or open the edit dialogue, to change the contents of a page and save it.
From the perspective of another person seeing someone hold this out, they would see the card, with the contents of whatever page the user has it currently set to. The contents must include the signature, if one has been given.
For a page to be signed, the user would have to approach someone (of any of the roles that would be ultimately determined to able to sign this). I'm not entirely sure about the exact procedure - Of how this would need to work for it to make sense and be reasonably implementable, but my thinking is - You could have the user, in edit dialogue, have the ability to give a basic yes/no prompt to the other person, kinda like the trade prompt? And if they say yes, then that page of the card gets signed, with their signature appearing on it. You could expand on it a little bit and have like the signature style options dropdown as part of the yes/no prompt, to make it a bit more like document signatures? But I would save worrying about the form for after the functionality is down pat and triage of the system is successful.
In short:
- New SWEP, appearance of the disguise card, function sort of like the clipboard SWEP?
- Users can choose what text SWEP is showing from what they have created and stored, to match whatever they need at that time
- A few select roles can apply a signature to specific sections of text, which would additionally show alongside that text, for the express purpose of proving in-roleplay authenticity
This probably needs NL or at least SSL auth, but like - My thinking is that if this functionality isn't possible with the current bots we have, we could find a suitable one or potentially create one - The functionality I'm looking for, is for some leadership roles to be able to attach miscellaneous info like "E-11 (whatever rank)", subdivision roles, etc. Write whatever they want for a given individual, to serve a couple purposes; The first being that they can readily produce needed and ideally accurate info to whoever - The second being for rank requests; This isn't intended to replace like keycard screenshots, I'm more thinking for like, subdivision channels. Like for example, E-11 DS. They can just have the relevant people add whatever to their box, go to the rank request channel and make the box come up and say like "Hey, I need this subdivision role." And then that's simpler for staff.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Miscellaneous Info SWEP not only directly overlaps with the upcoming planned Site Admin ID SWEP implementation, but even has the potential to supersede it as a superior method of achieving the same purpose (i.e. With this method, they can just write Site Admin ID for their card and get it signed by a member of SA or an Assistant (since an O5 should not be signing that)) - However, a couple key differences; Being that the planned Site Admin ID SWEP is intended to look like an actual ID card and not just a disguise card - So showing this would basically give people OOC information that that person is disguised; Which they might metagame. However, this is meant for more than just serving the purpose of Site Admin ID and replacing the bind; It's intended for things like IC departmental/regimental subdivisions and groups, etc. Maybe even for events, too. More on this in the final section.Another important difference between the two, is that the Site Admin ID SWEP implementation as listed on Github is intended to be strippable with interrogation tool - But not dropped. This I don't think would be able to serve that purpose, since it's per person. You would need a separate Site Admin ID keycard to serve that purpose.
There are no suggestions similar to the concept proposed for the Miscellaneous Info Discord Bot.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Would be a serviceable way to facilitate stuff like Site Admin ID in the interim (or replace it if staff so choose) and give functionality we've been asking for for a very long time - This way you won't get confusion about missing it in chat or otherwise.
- Opportunities for RP creation and hierarchy expansion between departments - Such as like maintenance, internal things within departments or regiments, such as creating intermediate positions between Agent & Ambassador, etc. etc.
- Lets departmental/regimental subdivision info be stored in places other than the person's name - So like, let's say you're a CI TEU-SGT, right? As things are right now, you'd have that in your name; Looks cool, but kinda only really means anything to CI, right? This way, you can kind of have that in a official capacity which is a bit of the rehash of the second point, but most importantly that this point focuses on, that CI tend to remove subdivision rank stuff from their names when 914 disguising, to stop metagaming. Basically - This would just make that easier so you'd have just your name and then your rank stuff in your card. BIt more goofy to have it in your name tbh. Applies to other things like MTF squadrons and GOC units.
- If this change to how the Chain of Command is accepted - Would improve facilitation of creating new roles in the command hierarchy with what are basically custom ID cards; Additionally would allow for creation of what is essentially entirely new jobs, without having to spread out the playerbase between them.
- Simple way for people to have information attached to them in DIscord, that can be recalled and evidenced when and where needed
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Dev time - Something abstract like this also has like a lot of weird edge case stuff that might also slip through the cracks.
- Abuse - Stuff like people putting severe tox in their cards, etc. Could also be cases of people signing things that they really shouldn't.
- Dev time - Especially for something that's probably unnecessary
- Too confusing, may be underutilised
Potential Arguments Against Implementing Your Suggestion & Rebuttals To Them:
-
I mean yeah, fair; You can basically just do this by handing a written and signed document over, it'd be the same thing.Wait no it's not, this would be more persistent. You die with a document on you, you lose that document and would need another one. This would allow for what would be basically custom ID cards for roleplay positions. My primary intention with this suggestion is to have something for people to put their subdivisions into, since not only is there a character limit on names, but they also pose like a metagaming disadvantage with 914 disguise infiltration. So like with CI or GOC, you could put your subdivision stuff in this and then when needed, present it - Change it, etc. Like, you can still do that with documents, but it's more unwieldy. That's the sort of thing this is meant to help with, like I like having my 731 tags and such in my GOC name, but be nice if I could have that information in another way. Stuff in name just generally feels metagamey and weird anyway.
Also like, this operates a little differently, it's show and read, as opposed to give the doc and expect them to give back. Documents are also entities which are things we'd like to reduce unnecessary amounts of existing in the server. -
I see your point and I agree; Just putting the idea out.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Again, I get that this is basically two suggestions in once, I said before why I think me doing it in this way is justified as they both come under the same umbrella and intersect with the same things, despite being separate things entirely - If it's deemed to be too much, I'll excise the bot part of this suggestion and make that a future suggestion.SWEP:
So yeah, my primary reason for this is, like as I said in the second positive point as well as argument against - Primarily because I want to stuff subdivision stuff in like... More RP-conducive things than having it in your name, which again, is kinda goofy and slightly metagamey. I want it to be like a CO asks like "Hey, which squadron/unit are you in" and then they pull out this card with that info in. But of course, since I made it like... Abstract, it can accommodate all sorts - And only on starting to write this suggestion did I realise it could be used to like... Just in place of Site Admin/Affairs ID binds. Like there's a lot of applications for this and I think this is genuinely worth pursuing if at all reasonably possible.Bot:
I don't personally put much stock in the bot idea - It's something I came up with while coming up with the SWEP idea and figured it was just a little request I could reasonably tag on, but I also understand that this would be seen as too much work for something that's just not really needed, especially since i don't suggest a specific bot that would be able to fulfil this purpose here, especially since I don't know what could even possibly perform this function - I would imagine that it is possible, though. Just a little light QoL thing is all.
Last edited:
Trial Game Master
Community Sup.
Group Moderator