Denied New comms channel

[Vxnt]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
A comms channel for ECA/OSA to share (/assistants)

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
It allows us to use another comms rather than /isd-c [Assistants] (which was kinda the whole point of the comms update, to stop needing to use other comms for different uses)
It allows assistants to sort stuff in a more civil matter rather than having the hostility of combatives interrupting or reading our discussions, and allows us to relay information back and forth easily.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I can't really think of any?

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
2 positives for 0 negatives, plus it wont affect anyone other than assistants..

 

[Broda]

-Support

/isd-c is more than suitable for what Assistants need.

 

[Biscuits]

+Support
I really see no issue with this, allow O5/ECM to see the comms though.

 

[ERaven]

+ support
Obviously O5/Ethics will be able to see it but there have been a few instances recently where the assistants have been able to settle issues between the two whilst ISD have been getting hostile towards each other, often in the mornings when there are no cl5 members online. It would also allow us to solve it without either using the group chat which SA can see or ISD-C which the members of ISD can see.

 

[Wonka Kane]

-support

Not necessary. There are already way too many comms channels. This would be barely used.

 

[Chad]

-support

 

[Broda]

So, apparently we have single ones already. Joint makes sense then. +Support

/osa did this for me

 

[Vxnt]

So, apparently we have this already???

/osa did this for me

View attachment 9215

we have OSA, and we have ECA comms, thats why I was asking if we could get one thats just /assistants, so ECA-OSA can communicate alone. There has been several events where we discuss matters through PMs and /g though both are technically ooc and are tedious to use, the ability to use /assistants would affect nobody other than assistants and SC, as SC would obviously see these comms, and also have access.

 

[Charles "Ze" Whittme]

+Support
Naturally both sides of SC should see them.

 

[Eizaas]

So, apparently we have single ones already. Joint makes sense then. +Support

/osa did this for me

View attachment 9215

your an 05 you can talk in OSA comms

 

[Broda]

your an 05 you can talk in OSA comms

No one ever used it, oddly enough. Never came to my attention.

 

[Eizaas]

No one ever used it, oddly enough. Never came to my attention.

fair enough

 

[ERaven]

No one ever used it, oddly enough. Never came to my attention.

wasnt aware /osa was barely used, /eca gets used fairly frequently

 

[Foxatron]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
A comms channel for ECA/OSA to share (/assistants)

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
It allows us to use another comms rather than /isd-c [Assistants] (which was kinda the whole point of the comms update, to stop needing to use other comms for different uses)
It allows assistants to sort stuff in a more civil matter rather than having the hostility of combatives interrupting or reading our discussions, and allows us to relay information back and forth easily.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
I can't really think of any?

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
2 positives for 0 negatives, plus it wont affect anyone other than assistants..

Hi there , just wondering why do you not feel like you can't use ISD-C and I feel like this wouldn't get used a lot quite frankly

 

[Vxnt]

Hi there , just wondering why do you not feel like you can't use ISD-C and I feel like this wouldn't get used a lot quite frankly

I understand the confusion, and do get why you'd feel that way, but as someone who actively plays assistant alot, I notice how much communication goes on through PMs and /g rather than ISD just to avoid MTFs being able to read whats going on, and in turn, influence discussions that we're trying to settle. Discussions between A1 and O1 can get quite heated at times in ISD-C, and the only ones who seem to be able to settle most things without it ever really resorting to arguments when SC isnt on, would be assistants.

 

[Foxatron]

I understand the confusion, and do get why you'd feel that way, but as someone who actively plays assistant alot, I notice how much communication goes on through PMs and /g rather than ISD just to avoid MTFs being able to read whats going on, and in turn, influence discussions that we're trying to settle. Discussions between A1 and O1 can get quite heated at times in ISD-C, and the only ones who seem to be able to settle most things without it ever really resorting to arguments when SC isnt on, would be assistants.

Could you provide me with a few examples?

 

["Fanboy"]

-support

Too many comms already

 

[John Dear]

-Support
What about Exec researcher comms and Ambassador comms or even Consultants? (This is a joke)
We have a lot of channels and to make one for every role or between certain departments / roles is unwanted. In the few occasions that you need to send "secure" messages you can use the brackets like you already demonstrated yourself. If this gets accepted its bound to happen that other people/departments want something similar and at the end of the day you have 50 comms channels.

 

[Rushi]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi @Vxnt,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.

The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion because, although this seems like a small change, this would basically lead to the server to start seperating by having all these comms added. We're currently avoiding adding even more comms, as we believe the current ones we have is enough, to keep things simple aswell.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​