Rule Suggestion Rewritting the rule of Recontaining SCP-106

[Archangel]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Hello, this rule will rewrite/add a new spin onto the rule in regards to re-containing SCP-106 (The rule is not officially written but it is classified as FailRP) and the new rule would go like this

"In times of emergency/containment breach MTF must attempt to re-contain SCP-106 using D-Class at all times However if D-Class are unable to be used in re-containment, the next lowest important personnel are used ONLY IN THE STRICTEST OF EMERGENCIES"

Basically if D-Class are unable to be grabbed and used for 106 Re-containment for a wide variety of reasons (No D Class to grab, D-Block is inhospitable due to Breaches/Chaos Insurgency, D-Class are unable to reach SCP-106s containment cell etc) then the Foundation will sacrifice a job that is not important to their operations. (Jr researchers, Trainees, Engineers, Chemists etc up the chain of Importance)

Additionally, this can only be Enacted with SL/SC Approval only

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
More Foundation flexibility in breaches
New RP Scenarios in which Foundation have to do a heroic sacrifice for the greater good

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
May get abused

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The pros outweigh the cons and additionally it will bring light to an obscure rule that isn't written but is still abided by

 

[Joris "Brexit" Bohnson]

Honestly I don't know with this one. On one hand it would defintly have the potential for being abused, but on the other hand it is shitty to deal with prolonged 106 breaches because other SCPs are either camping dblock, medbay or LCZ and can affect how other SCPs are RCed

I +Support This if it requires SL+ auth, otherwise I do not support it

 

[Niox]

-Support
-Just makes the experience of newer people wayyyy less fun.
-106 Nerf

 

[Emilia Foddg]

hm

i like it.
+Support
but it needs more iteration. as said above, SL+ auth would be fine - although imo at minimum you should need SC auth; and if there's none on, then SL+ can auth, kinda like how GOI main raid auth works.

so for SC auth, that would be RP-wise (and this should only be authed by then when there's a mass breach, maybe even more - otherwise it'd be failRP) with stuff like ethical RP concerns, weighing this decision, etc. and in terms of SL+ auth, that'd just be for server health concerns, be like if there's a whole bunch of SCPs out and if it's evaluated to be detrimental to server health to allow 106 to stay out, because it's basically uncontainable at this point, then they could auth it.

-Support
-Just makes the experience of newer people wayyyy less fun.
-106 Nerf

what and a mass 7+ SCP breach is fun for those same new people? this would both make some degree of sense and have an option to improve server health - this seems like a very slight nerf to 106 since it's extremely situational, but my boy is in need of a buff at some point anyway

 

[Niox]

what and a mass 7+ SCP breach is fun for those same new people? this would both make some degree of sense and have an option to improve server health

personally referring to the lower scale breaches

"oh buddy boy 076 is wandering HCZ and we cant get a d clas down there"
WHAT IS THIS? A RANDOM JR RSD WHO JUST CAME OUT OF 106???? MY MY DONT MIND IF I USE THIS MAN RIGHT HERE
tad bit silly innit

this seems like a very slight nerf to 106 since it's extremely situational, but my boy is in need of a buff at some point anyway

imo no, not really. You've doubled the pool of people who can be used for 106 RCing

 

[Emilia Foddg]

personally referring to the lower scale breaches

then it doesn't apply to what i've said

imo no, not really. You've doubled the pool of people who can be used for 106 RCing

which is why i said this

but it needs more iteration. as said above, SL+ auth would be fine - although imo at minimum you should need SC auth; and if there's none on, then SL+ can auth, kinda like how GOI main raid auth works

that way it only gets used for really grievous breaches w/ 106 as part of them

"oh buddy boy 076 is wandering HCZ and we cant get a d clas down there"
WHAT IS THIS? A RANDOM JR RSD WHO JUST CAME OUT OF 106???? MY MY DONT MIND IF I USE THIS MAN RIGHT HERE
tad bit silly innit

yes, because SC or SL+ would auth that

 

[Niox]

then it doesn't apply to what i've said

fair

yes, because SC or SL+ would auth that

i'll be honest - it being SC+ doesnt change much in my opinion. it'll always be authed by them because hey, why wouldnt it?

 

[Emilia Foddg]

i'll be honest - it being SC+ doesnt change much in my opinion. it'll always be authed by them because hey, why wouldnt it?

like, it should be an ethics thing primarily because... well this would make sense as an ethics concern. like this is a good opportunity for RP for them. and then if there's no ethics on and O5 auth it in a situation where ethics wouldn't, then that can be hopefully be picked up on by ethics later and they can be like "hey, you authed this trainee to be used as 106 bait when you really shouldn't have"

this is a great opportunity

 

[Niox]

like, it should be an ethics thing primarily because... well this would make sense as an ethics concern. like this is a good opportunity for RP for them. and then if there's no ethics on and O5 auth it in a situation where ethics wouldn't, then that can be hopefully be picked up on by ethics later and they can be like "hey, you authed this trainee to be used as 106 bait when you really shouldn't have"

this is a great opportunity

fair

-Support
-Just makes the experience of newer people wayyyy less fun.
-106 Nerf

updated to +/- Neutral

 

[Ogre]

-support

 

[Archangel]

updated suggestion to include "Additionally, this can only be Enacted with SL/SC Approval only" to the stipulation.

 

[Crazyhorse]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Hello, this rule will rewrite/add a new spin onto the rule in regards to re-containing SCP-106 (The rule is not officially written but it is classified as FailRP) and the new rule would go like this

"In times of emergency/containment breach MTF must attempt to re-contain SCP-106 using D-Class at all times However if D-Class are unable to be used in re-containment, the next lowest important personnel are used ONLY IN THE STRICTEST OF EMERGENCIES"

Basically if D-Class are unable to be grabbed and used for 106 Re-containment for a wide variety of reasons (No D Class to grab, D-Block is inhospitable due to Breaches/Chaos Insurgency, D-Class are unable to reach SCP-106s containment cell etc) then the Foundation will sacrifice a job that is not important to their operations. (Jr researchers, Trainees, Engineers, Chemists etc up the chain of Importance)

Additionally, this can only be Enacted with SL/SC Approval only

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
More Foundation flexibility in breaches
New RP Scenarios in which Foundation have to do a heroic sacrifice for the greater good

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
May get abused

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The pros outweigh the cons and additionally it will bring light to an obscure rule that isn't written but is still abided by

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Hello, this rule will rewrite/add a new spin onto the rule in regards to re-containing SCP-106 (The rule is not officially written but it is classified as FailRP) and the new rule would go like this

"In times of emergency/containment breach MTF must attempt to re-contain SCP-106 using D-Class at all times However if D-Class are unable to be used in re-containment, the next lowest important personnel are used ONLY IN THE STRICTEST OF EMERGENCIES"

Basically if D-Class are unable to be grabbed and used for 106 Re-containment for a wide variety of reasons (No D Class to grab, D-Block is inhospitable due to Breaches/Chaos Insurgency, D-Class are unable to reach SCP-106s containment cell etc) then the Foundation will sacrifice a job that is not important to their operations. (Jr researchers, Trainees, Engineers, Chemists etc up the chain of Importance)

Additionally, this can only be Enacted with SL/SC Approval only

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
More Foundation flexibility in breaches
New RP Scenarios in which Foundation have to do a heroic sacrifice for the greater good

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
May get abused

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The pros outweigh the cons and additionally it will bring light to an obscure rule that isn't written but is still abided by

GIANT -Support
All this does is Nerf 106, this rule is Extremely abusable and "Strict emergencies" is very open. SCP-106 doesnt breach for longer than the rest anyways so there is no point in doing this.

 

[Lightsoulist]

-Support still
Literally just a nerf for 106 that isn't needed at all even if "its only for emergencies"

 

[grunger]

-

A 106 nerf just isn't justified in the current meta. He's has the lowest-impact against skilled players and is simultaneously the most dependent on other SCPs to defend his chamber. 106 should be a threat with that singular Achilles heel; this change would make him a joke to deal with.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-support

GIANT -Support
All this does is Nerf 106, this rule is Extremely abusable and "Strict emergencies" is very open. SCP-106 doesnt breach for longer than the rest anyways so there is no point in doing this.

-Support still
Literally just a nerf for 106 that isn't needed at all even if "its only for emergencies"

-

A 106 nerf just isn't justified in the current meta. He's has the lowest-impact against skilled players and is simultaneously the most dependent on other SCPs to defend his chamber. 106 should be a threat with that singular Achilles heel; this change would make him a joke to deal with.

i really don't think any of you are grasping the circumstances under which this would be used -

it's not like a "oh hey, there's some SCPs out, one of them's 106, alright, let's just go throw whoever we can at the box to put him away"

this is like "there's like 6 or 7 SCPs out, one of them is 106 and we literally can't do anything about it because all the other SCPs are stopping us from getting to D-block and we also can't do anything about the other SCPs because they're working extremely well with 106 and we can't co-ordinate a proper breach response outside of just nuking the place"

 

[Boris Johnson]

-Support

 

[TootsMcScoots]

-support
106 is already kinda ass, doesnt need to be made worse

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

-support
"It was a complete coincidence that the E11-MAJ who switched onto Jr-Researcher got kidnapped (and was EXTREMELY compliant!) and sent to 106s cell to recontain him! ! !"

 

[Niox]

-support
"It was a complete coincidence that the E11-MAJ who switched onto Jr-Researcher got kidnapped and sent to 106s cell to recontain him!"

oh yeah, that also brings up the question of would it be a OOC or IC issue if it was SC authing it

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-support
"It was a complete coincidence that the E11-MAJ who switched onto Jr-Researcher got kidnapped (and was EXTREMELY compliant!) and sent to 106s cell to recontain him! ! !"

i mean they can do that as a d-class anyway, what's your point here