What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion replaces rule:
4.4 Non-Combative Personnel - The day to day duties of the person's job doesn’t require them to involve themselves in combat, these roles and/or departments may not engage in combat unless there are no options available, such as escape or hiding.
more specifically, Overseer Assistants | Ethics Assistants to being:
Non-Combative unless pursuing an arrest (Similar to what IA agents used to be)
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Allows assistant's to directly interfere with personnel breaking the FLC by putting them under FearRP.~
- Assistants, although Cl4, are no where near as important to the general site safety as other personnel, being more similar to IA Agents with slightly more power who server Site-Command. This reminds me of the time someone compared the Assistant Job as a "Ambassador with direct access to SC."
- Although the "ISD Escort" scenario can be argued, ISD are not always available, and neither are IA, sometimes being 10 seconds, or even minutes away from responding.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Not any negatives I can think of.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Would allow more RP and arrests to take place, especially on high value targets, when undercover without the need for IA to move in, possibly allowing the target to run off.
This suggestion replaces rule:
4.4 Non-Combative Personnel - The day to day duties of the person's job doesn’t require them to involve themselves in combat, these roles and/or departments may not engage in combat unless there are no options available, such as escape or hiding.
more specifically, Overseer Assistants | Ethics Assistants to being:
Non-Combative unless pursuing an arrest (Similar to what IA agents used to be)
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Allows assistant's to directly interfere with personnel breaking the FLC by putting them under FearRP.~
- Assistants, although Cl4, are no where near as important to the general site safety as other personnel, being more similar to IA Agents with slightly more power who server Site-Command. This reminds me of the time someone compared the Assistant Job as a "Ambassador with direct access to SC."
- Although the "ISD Escort" scenario can be argued, ISD are not always available, and neither are IA, sometimes being 10 seconds, or even minutes away from responding.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Not any negatives I can think of.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Would allow more RP and arrests to take place, especially on high value targets, when undercover without the need for IA to move in, possibly allowing the target to run off.
Donator
Developer
Mapping Team
Trial Game Master
