Rule Suggestion Remove/rework chain of command from in the rules

[Harry Chich]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Remove the chain of command section in the rules, or rework it to say:

"Foundation Command hold ultimate authority over all other Foundation staff. Foundation Command also have the authority to delegate the Chain of Command as they see fit, given that Site Administration is above all other site staff."

From the previous rule:

4.01 Global Base Hierarchy - The following chain of command applies at all times. Foundation Staff in higher positions in this table can give orders to those in lower positions.

Spoiler: Global Base Hierarchy List

Overseer Council | Ethics Committee
O5/Ethics Assistants (when under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Site Administration (Site Director, Manager and Advisor)
Department Directors | Department Chiefs | MTF Commanders
DEA Managers | ISD Commissioners | MTF Commissioned Officers (Major)
O5/Ethics Assistants (when not under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Executive Researchers | Medical Consultants | Inspectors | Special Agents | Security Captains | MTF Commissioned Officers (LT and CPT)
Internal Security | External Affairs
MTF Operative
Security Staff
All other personnel

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Similar suggestion here

I am suggesting that SL should have no part in how the chain of command is set on either server, besides the absolute fundamentals (Foundation Command must be at the top, Site Administration must be above all site staff, and obviously you can't have an Nu-7 CPL overrule and Nu-7 CSG). This is quite similar to the linked suggestion, however I believe it was a mistake to deny that suggestion in the first place.

Currently, if you disobey an order from someone higher in the chain of command, it is technically a rulebreak. This is pointless, as we already have IC ways to handle disobedience. As well as this, there have been times that changes in the chain of command would have been useful, but could not be implemented due to being in the rules and having to ensure cross server parity.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Roleplay will be generated from meetings discussing the chain of command, as well as the effects of those changes.

- Less ruleplay when disobeying the chain of command.

- Ease of change when needed (for instance, deciding that an MTF needs more authority over combative situations than the Director of Research).

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Possibility for abuse of power. Somebody could use it to put someone down on the chain of command due to OOC dislike.

- CL5 might make subpar decisions leading to sitewide confusion.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Overall, this is a positive step in giving our roleplay leaders more influence in how roleplay is conducted across the site. This removes unneeded barriers for positive change, and removes a strange piece of ruleplay that has been in place for too long.

 

[Remmy]

+Support
A nice idea, and I would love for SC to have autonomy over the way the CoC works. It should be the case that RP Leaders are in charge of large-scale / site-wide policy like this, anyway. On UK the FLC means, as you've said, that we can enforce CoC issues from an in-character perspective.

I motioned the idea of changing the CoC on UK semi-recently, to better reflect how the Foundation might actually operate (Dependant on canon, of course).

O5 Council / Overwatch Command
Core administrative and regulatory bodies (The Ethics Committee, RAISA, O4 Command) Regional Command (N.A.R.D)
Site Administration | Assistants when under direct orders

The above would theoretically rectify some major misunderstandings people have about where O5 actually stand in terms of the CoC, and how their dynamic with other bodies like the Ethics Committee functions. Of course, this would only be an in-character Chain of Command.

Acceptance of your suggestion would mean that SC could agree to do this kind of thing independently, so I am very much on board.

 

[kenraali]

+Support
Like what remmy said.

 

[Average member podidski]

+Support and i have something to say:

it will be denied again, why?

because its like "shock therapy" (not economics one but the server one which is your suggetion), and yes you can tell me that "SSL can take their time to think and etc" but this is still shock therapy, its a sudden change that even a announcement on discord like 2 days before a change wont bypass the "shock therapy effect", because its too late to change since it was "coded" into our minds that "oh must follow that global foundation hierarchy" (idk why its called "base" and not "foundation" but sure), newgens (if there will be even) may be fine with it but oldgens like us (2-3 years) had it "accepted it" (the old global hierarchy)

and the suggetion you mentioned was made in 2024, which is not late but too late at the same time.

 

[Jack Raider]

+support, all my points are already stated by others!

 

[Guts]

Regional Command (N.A.R.D)

Chief Overseer 'The Nard'

 

[Zen]

+Support
It's an entirely RP-centric thing that is just under SSL's control for no reason. Just have some basic ground rules like O5 being at the top and EC being to the side of them and let O5 and those they appoint like SA decide.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

+Support
You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me.

Honestly, I'd be fine with some kind of halfway measure at this point - I just always found it really weird that the specific structure is an explicit server rule.

Hell, we have SCP-RP Discussion now. It doesn't even need to be a document external to the network (i.e. a Google Doc) - Which I'm aware that many in Staff have a very understandable and reasonable gripe with. In that case, make the CoC two pinned & locked per-server threads in SCP discussion - UK CoC & US CoC - Cement the control of the final list still being in the hands of Staff, but more of as an approval measure to prevent abuse, rather than something that Staff need to actively manage as a kind of rule, as I stated in the prior suggestion I wrote.

The process would then work like this: RP Leadership work out a structure for CoC, which ends at O5/Ethics. They then take that list to the relevant Staff OOC and ask the post to be updated accordingly. If there's an issue, it can be held back. Otherwise, the CoC is changed accordingly.

It's a little clunky, but that's bureaucracy at work
And it gives some practical use to SCP-RP Discussion as a bonus.

Once more, with feeling:

think like, regimental leadership policies. you don't make a suggestion to staff to change how E-11 or Nu-7 run a tryout, right? ...so why would we need make suggestions to change the IC authority of certain jobs? the point is that it's not a discussion that needs to happen here. it doesn't make sense.

[...]

why this is part of server rules? what server rules can you think of that change depending on what roleplay rank or job's authority you have?

I will append that, to my understanding NLR soooort of changes depending on job - But that's duty-based and still states that you need to be ordered to the area of your duty, to return to that area and nix the time restriction. No kind of CoC-conferred authority changes how you interact with NLR, just what your job does IC.

Things like loyalty to your team are faction based and the outlined CoC covers only F. Like, I'm fairly certain there is nothing that changes based on IC authority. When it comes to the rules, an O5 is generally held to the same standards as a D-Class (or at least, they should be?).

 

[Steven]

+Support, On the US server we actually operate like the suggestion for example E-11 having authority over every regiment when it comes things like SCPs and HCZ as well as us not having to follow ISD orders because we only listen to SA/SC. same with A-1 and O-1 being out of the CoC completely and only having to listen to O5/EC and ISD cannot arrest the. and it works perfectly