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

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

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

just because they can do it as a d class it doesnt mean it's a good thing, nor does it mean that it should also end up happening with Foundation Jobs. The entire reason 106 cannot be killed is because ALL HANDS ON DECK need to be working to get D-class into his containment cell. A Jr researcher can very easily just walk to a HCZ checkpoint and """"unknowingly"""" get kidnapped by E11, or "get lost" in HCZ and end up outside of 106s containment cell. Considering the amount of metagame sits E11 is notorious for don't pretend like this wouldn't happen anytime E11 can't be arsed to get a D-Class.

are you seriously trying to make the argument that it isn't a problem because "e11 can already cheat the system as d-class so why can't it be easier for them to cheat it as foundation staff?"

 

[Emilia Foddg]

are you seriously trying to make the argument that it isn't a problem because "e11 can already cheat the system as d-class so why can't it be easier for them to cheat it as foundation staff?"

the fact that you think it's a problem with this suggestion at all is absurd. job abuse was always against the rules, this wouldn't change that

Considering the amount of metagame sits E11 is notorious for

never heard of it. they somehow seem to all behave while i'm around. strange, that

don't pretend like this wouldn't happen anytime E11 can't be arsed to get a D-Class.

i have previously threatened to PT the UK E-11 commander on three separate occasions, for less. i personally promise you that i would come down hard on any E-11 that tried to deliberately abuse this. again, read what i wrote before - this is not just an "insta-defeat 106 any time we want" button that you and seemingly most people are interpreting this suggestion as.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

the fact that you think it's a problem with this suggestion at all is absurd. job abuse was always against the rules, this wouldn't change that

never heard of it. they somehow seem to all behave while i'm around. strange, that

i have previously threatened to PT the UK E-11 commander on three separate occasions, for less. i personally promise you that i would come down hard on any E-11 that tried to deliberately abuse this. again, read what i wrote before - this is not just an "insta-defeat 106 any time we want" button that you and seemingly most people are interpreting this suggestion as.

crazy that people behave when someone who can punish them is online and in the same TS channel as them ??? (also remember there are staff complaints regularly posted because they also break the rules)

job abuse is against the rules and yet you still see tens of people getting warned for even small things every day- the suggestion is WAY too vauge on what is the "most dire emergencies" or whatever. It wouldn't only be job abuse btw, if the E11 using that person was complacent and pushed the button knowing somebody hopped on that job purely to do it they'd also have to be warned for whatever that would be, im going on a tangent tho.

In the rare case I did get pulled into a sit for doing this, I could just say "from my judgement the breach was too out of hand so I put a researcher in there to end it!!" and get away with a verbal warning since I had good intentions and the ruling was too vague on what counts as a dire circumstance or whatever. It's too easy to get away with ending a breach especially with something this incredibly vague.

btw i talked with him and this is how the E11 com felt after you said that: (this is a lie)

 

[Niox]

the fact that you think it's a problem with this suggestion at all is absurd. job abuse was always against the rules, this wouldn't change that

guys. it’s against the rules you cannot do it 100% we solved everything.

this is always a dumb reasoning imo
I could let d class spawn with Davy crockets, but if they use them UH OH ITS A RULE BREAK

I give the option of 106 re-containment using this, and it’s always available but uh oh, if I use it sometimes it’s against the rules? Bit silly

 

[Joris Kilotoviz/London]

Honestly I have to agree with Emilia.

We aren't just plainly saying "Oh there is two SCPs out so we are gonna get a Cl1 and throw them in there" This would apply to situations where there was a major SCP breach going on, ERT is failing and Foundation is scrambling to save the site

This is a bit of a overexagerated example, but its like you are all saying Augers, Nitro, Nerve Gas, Stickies, Slams and Air support should all be removed because they can be powerful against low numbers of SCPs.

This rule change is not reffering to low numbers of SCPs, and by leaving it up to SL (Ideally Senior Admin+) then it is a lot more likely to be fair because most people would not want to risk their staff member role by blatantly giving an auth when it isn't needed

 

[Emilia Foddg]

the suggestion is WAY too vauge on what is the "most dire emergencies" or whatever.

In the rare case I did get pulled into a sit for doing this, I could just say "from my judgement the breach was too out of hand so I put a researcher in there to end it!!" and get away with a verbal warning since I had good intentions and the ruling was too vague on what counts as a dire circumstance or whatever. It's too easy to get away with ending a breach especially with something this incredibly vague.

well yeah, because that's up for SSL/NL/whoever to decide. obviously it's not going to be just for whatever the end player feels is appropriate - and examples have already been given on what the appropriate usage should be.

guys. it’s against the rules you cannot do it 100% we solved everything.

this is always a dumb reasoning imo
I could let d class spawn with Davy crockets, but if they use them UH OH ITS A RULE BREAK

yeah and this argument is just the other end of the scale; we have AA for use against SCPs but we should remove it all because sometimes people get them when they're not supposed to and start doing shit like firing matadors into d-block.

I give the option of 106 re-containment using this, and it’s always available but uh oh, if I use it sometimes it’s against the rules? Bit silly

at this point you're both just deliberately ignoring what has been said about the circumstances in which this would apply and hyperfocusing as if it were for just only 106 out, which is clearly not the intent of the suggestion.

(also remember there are staff complaints regularly posted because they also break the rules)

well staff should also be coming to us if they find E-11 that fuck up, because we don't tolerate minges within the reg. this isn't exactly a new precedent, staff have said to regiments "hey, blacklist this person for this reason, here's their steamid" and we've done it, so.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

yeah and this argument is just the other end of the scale; we have AA for use against SCPs but we should remove it all because sometimes people get them when they're not supposed to and start doing shit like firing matadors into d-block.

main difference is AA is locked behind CL4 bio, but the JR RESEARCHER RECONTAINMENT STRAT can be done by anybody who is above level 5 lol

 

[Zen]

-Support
This is just kind of silly, ngl. There's no need, it doesn't make sense, and it makes the experience for mostly newer players worse.

 

[Crazyhorse]

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

if they can then why waste time making this suggestion?

 

[Emilia Foddg]

main difference is AA is locked behind CL4 bio, but the JR RESEARCHER RECONTAINMENT STRAT can be done by anybody who is above level 5 lol

...and anyone with access to a CL3 job can hack AA doors - and even ignoring that, you can just buy 106 from someone, try to get TP'd into AA, then TP back out (or alternatively, get hold of NHU).

your and niox's argument here is that given the avenue to do it, regardless of whether or not it's against the rules, then it will be abused - therefore we shouldn't have it.

if they can then why waste time making this suggestion?

because it's about avenues of dealing with mass, ridiculously out-of-hand breaches that bring the server to a grinding halt.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

...and anyone with access to a CL3 job can hack AA doors - and even ignoring that, you can just buy 106 from someone, try to get TP'd into AA, then TP back out (or alternatively, get hold of NHU).

your and niox's argument here is that given the avenue to do it, regardless of whether or not it's against the rules, then it will be abused - therefore we shouldn't have it.

we can both go on all day with absurd examples but you know in practice how absurd trying either of those is, the problem is how easy this rule could be broken to easily end breaches- look how stupid of a thing you need to do to get into AA (which you lose after one life) and compare that to a Jr researcher, who can respawn indefinitely, who 'cluelessly' walks into HCZ and down to 106s cell

it honestly feels like you're trying to avoid the big point here that, if broken, it'd not only be incredibly difficult to prove somebody maliciously did it (see how rarely people are warned for metagame) but also make 106 breaches a lot easier to end

 

[Emilia Foddg]

it honestly feels like you're trying to avoid the big point here that, if broken, it'd not only be incredibly difficult to prove somebody maliciously did it (see how rarely people are warned for metagame) but also make 106 breaches a lot easier to end

and you're avoiding the point here that it's not for just any random 106 breach, which i have raised repeatedly to no acknowledgement.

 

[Dr Random K.]

-support unneeded nerf and abusable

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

and you're avoiding the point here that it's not for just any random 106 breach, which i have raised repeatedly to no acknowledgement.

(the problem is "any random 106 breach" is way too vague and leaves too much of a grey area for people to abuse)

 

[KingViper115]

-Support

This is a cope suggestion type ngl

 

[grunger]

they're working extremely well with 106 and we can't co-ordinate a proper breach response

When either of these things are true, let alone both, things tend to get dicey for the foundation anyway. Let's say we have a metaphorical limit to how many and in what way we can nerf SCPs; would you rather see a nerf to 076, one of the go-to's for causing code blacks and generally a pain to kill otherwise, or 106? Consider whether 106 is the one compounding the disruptiveness of the majority of breaches; the SCP who can only go for easy pickings because he's walking molasses.

 

[Niox]

yeah and this argument is just the other end of the scale; we have AA for use against SCPs but we should remove it all because sometimes people get them when they're not supposed to and start doing shit like firing matadors into d-block.

at this point you're both just deliberately ignoring what has been said about the circumstances in which this would apply and hyperfocusing as if it were for just only 106 out, which is clearly not the intent of the suggestion.

ok I’m pretty sure I wrote that while half drunk but you get the point even if the examples I used are stupid

 

[Emilia Foddg]

(the problem is "any random 106 breach" is way too vague and leaves too much of a grey area for people to abuse)

ok I’m pretty sure I wrote that while half drunk but you get the point even if the examples I used are stupid

i get the point, now get the response to it that i've been trying to get across to you for basically a full page:

you're wrong.

in a scenario under present rules where just anyone goes and RCs 106 as the sacrifice, as a non-combative foundation job, would be punished as failRP and for ruining 106's breach, 106 might probably even be refunded.

in a scenario where this rule is present and just anyone goes and RCs any standard 106 breach as the sacrifice, as a non-combative foundation job, would be punished as failRP and for ruining 106's breach, 106 might probably even be refunded.

pretty much same way as CI can't just randomly walk into F without main raid auth and they get punished for failraiding

i don't know how else to say this to you at this point.

 

[Zen]

i get the point, now get the response to it that i've been trying to get across to you for basically a full page:

you're wrong.

in a scenario under present rules where just anyone goes and RCs 106 as the sacrifice, as a non-combative foundation job, would be punished as failRP and for ruining 106's breach, 106 might probably even be refunded.

in a scenario where this rule is present and just anyone goes and RCs any standard 106 breach as the sacrifice, as a non-combative foundation job, would be punished as failRP and for ruining 106's breach, 106 might probably even be refunded.

pretty much same way as CI can't just randomly walk into F without main raid auth and they get punished for failraiding

i don't know how else to say this to you at this point.

Bro wrote the most incomprehensible post I've ever read ?

 

["Liquid" Karl]

I like the idea but 106 doesn't need to be nerfed.
Scps are already hard to play and I get mass breaches are getting more common but the majority of them get recontained.
Also 106 is one of the easiest to recontain.