Rule Suggestion Site Admin/Site Affairs rule or ruling

[Zen]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Right now, there are no written rules around this, but several rules that staff will enforce anyway around powergaming and the like. It is my understanding that NL has ruled that it be allowed, though USA SL have banned them altogether anyway.

What I want is a rule or a ruling around Site Admin and Site Affairs IDs, defining:

• What they are
• Who can use them
• What info has to be provided
  • Some staff/SL have previously said that SA ID does include codename and regiment but not rank, but there is no enforced rule around what info actually has to be included in binds, so people have no way of knowing even OOC that info.
  • So ideally, binds would have to be something like: /me presents Site Admin ID. Regiment: MTF Alpha-1. Codename: "Pyrite".
  • SC's SA IDs could just use something like [REDACTED] or just a more generic "Department: Site Administration. Name: [FAKE NAME]."
• How they can be stolen/obtained/faked in RP
  • Currently, to my knowledge, there is basically no way of obtaining them legit, and any attempt to RP doing so gets you warned for powergaming, making this an unstealable, unfakeable ID with no counter
• When they can be used
  • E.g. in disguise or not, with gun out or not, etc.

From a post Auburn made a while back in E-11 Announcements:

The dev tracker issue for creating an SA ID SWEP, and what info it's intended to include:

Administrative ID Cards · Issue #349 · civilnetworks-projects/SCP_Public_Development

Suggestion: https://www.civilgamers.com/community/threads/add-administrative-id-cards.10619/ An administrative ID is an ID card that authenticates the identity of MTF O-1/A-1 as well as any CL5 per...

github.com

• Includes regiment and rank
• ISD and CL5s get this, but no mention of SA or IA
• Can't drop on death
• Can be stripped using interro tool, and presumably picked up by others
• "does not replace code words" - presumably, means it can't be used as an absolute word of god, unfakeable, uncounterable ID - which makes sense considering it can be taken/stolen

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):

• Provides a central resource for new players to learn about and understand these IDs
• Provides a central ruling to refer back to for staff and players so they know what can/can't be done, rather than relying on word of mouth
• Enforces requirement that SA IDs provide some info so that it is actually possible to e.g. report an ISD operative to their COs, check OOC if someone is faking an ID and breaking rules, know somebody's place in the chain of command in relation to you, etc.
• Provides knowledge of how SA ID might be able to be stolen in RP or some such - they're currently unfakeable ID with no counter, so it's actually impossible for e.g. CI to DC as anyone with SA ID, no matter how well they do it and how much effort they put into it

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• ISD and others can no longer powergame by providing an ID that provides IC info without actually providing the info
• SL have to actually write a rule/ruling, which they seem allergic to
• Depending on the rules set out, may buff CI DC and affect balance - not really a negative, but does require balancing and thought.
• Would apply to both servers, which USA don't seem to want.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This would provide some necessary clarification, useful info for new players, and make SA ID less powergame-y/FailRP. Current SA IDs are very annoying as you can't tell who someone is even though you're already supposed to know IC, and nobody has any way of properly disguising as anyone with SA ID no matter the work they put in.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

• How they can be stolen/obtained/faked in RP
  • Currently, to my knowledge, there is basically no way of obtaining them legit, and any attempt to RP doing so gets you warned for powergaming, making this an unstealable, unfakeable ID with no counter

While they can't be stolen It has always been a general ruling that showing the card itself instead or the ID bind can not be grounds to assume the person is fake. Though I guess people do silently metagame that. It would make sense to allow use of the bind if you have an appropriate card, though you would need to update it with the info of said card.


I do agree it would be nice if the site admin and affairs ID's had a personal identifier. For example

For example the binds could be:
"Site Admin ID - Omega-1" Since they just need to identify they're ISD/Their Reg
"Site Admin ID - Inspector-2" For council. Though in the timeline they get ID'ed. That'd be crazy.
"Site Admin ID - Ethics Member"
"Site Admin ID - Ethics Assistant"
"Site Admin ID - Inspectors Assistant" (Or whatever the cover for OSA's are)
"Site Affairs ID - Amb. Edward Song" - Identifier of the position and name of the IA

You could then RP stealing them as perhaps deepcovers only, With the player you're stealing from confirming the details so you have that type of ID bind (Invalid after they lose the card)

 

[Zen]

While they can't be stolen It has always been a general ruling that showing the card itself instead or the ID bind can not be grounds to assume the person is fake. Though I guess people do silently metagame that. It would make sense to allow use of the bind if you have an appropriate card, though you would need to update it with the info of said card.


I do agree it would be nice if the site admin and affairs ID's had a personal identifier. For example

For example the binds could be:
"Site Admin ID - Omega-1" Since they just need to identify they're ISD/Their Reg
"Site Admin ID - Inspector-2" For council. Though in the timeline they get ID'ed. That'd be crazy.
"Site Admin ID - Ethics Member"
"Site Admin ID - Ethics Assistant"
"Site Admin ID - Inspectors Assistant" (Or whatever the cover for OSA's are)
"Site Affairs ID - Amb. Edward Song" - Identifier of the position and name of the IA

You could then RP stealing them as perhaps deepcovers only, With the player you're stealing from confirming the details so you have that type of ID bind (Invalid after they lose the card)

Having the info of reg, codename and rank would be the best combination imo. From what I've been told, when ISD are not in disguise, you can already tell their rank by their uniform (i.e. you're allowed to use their title if you can see their uniform), and the rank gives you their position in the chain of command so you know how to deal with them. Reg and codename means that you can actually do things like report issues to COs, bring the right person to a tribunal, etc.

To my knowledge, ISD below CO aren't even allowed to show their actual ID, so if they did they'd be breaking protocol and would almost certainly be dealt with differently by other ISD, so they would, even if indirectly, be seen as suspicious if not showing SA ID.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

To my knowledge, ISD below CO aren't even allowed to show their actual ID, so if they did they'd be breaking protocol and would almost certainly be dealt with differently by other ISD, so they would, even if indirectly, be seen as suspicious if not showing SA ID.

I've always been told you aren't to show ID period and use the bind. But With the rules to my knowledge of the ID. Showing your card is not itself an issue. Just strange behaviour yes, I've also had conflicting information that "Looking at the keycard directly means you know that A1's full identity". But Also reports that say this is false.

Reg+Codename I feel is more than appropriate for an Site admin bind. Regiment at the least

 

[Niox]

+Support
-i hate the grrrrrrr powergaming card

 

[YandereMuffin]

+ Support
It would nice to have a general rulings around them, and personally I think it's a little powerful that people can just flash their ID whilst still pointing their guns is kinda meh.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

+ Support
It would nice to have a general rulings around them, and personally I think it's a little powerful that people can just flash their ID whilst still pointing their guns is kinda meh.

It's normally to prevent some bozo DC to go "Ah yes silent C1, ID please" then fearRP you the second you put a card away and take away your coms before you can panic.

 

[Zen]

It's normally to prevent some bozo DC to go "Ah yes silent C1, ID please" then fearRP you the second you put a card away and take away your coms before you can panic.

I also think insta-strip binds should be FailRP, so

 

[Niox]

It's normally to prevent some bozo DC to go "Ah yes silent C1, ID please" then fearRP you the second you put a card away and take away your coms before you can panic.

why are is it unfair for ISD to have to do this, but fine for everyone else?
You can also just, do this to a DC?

 

[Merrick Travolta]

why are is it unfair for ISD to have to do this, but fine for everyone else?
You can also just, do this to a DC?

I literally said I'm fine with them taking the RP bind if they add details of the card they stole to it, Like we would be forced to.

 

[The Guardian]

• SL have to actually write a rule/ruling, which they seem allergic to

We could just remove ID keybinds. Aside from O5, there's no infobreach IDs. ISD designations like Alpha and Omega-1 aren't classified.

ID keybinds are just confusing and asking to be faked by people.

Plus keybinds are cringe anyway.

 

[Zen]

We could just remove ID keybinds. Aside from O5, there's no infobreach IDs. ISD designations like Alpha and Omega-1 aren't classified.

ID keybinds are just confusing and asking to be faked by people.

Plus keybinds are cringe anyway.

At this point, yes. But if we're going to have them, they should actually have rules enforced and not be the current shit version we have.

 

[Bohemia]

Only ruling is by NL saying they can't be stripped, taken off bodies etc. US SSL ruled they weren't a thing because "Oh we didn't know!!" but NL overruled that.

 

[Requis]

Hi,

While looking into this we have realized that the inception of /me's in the context of identification was introduced as a way to 'legally' powergame by showing identification that is forcefully 'valid' without any ability for a disguising party to steal, or use it in any way. We did place a recommendation to make an actual administrative ID through game mechanic, and when that is created it should work as intended.

However, after a thorough discussion between Senior Server Leadership we've identified that the use of Site Affairs & Site Admin ID, at its current state, is powergaming.

Here is the added staff ruling;

8.01 Site Admin/Affairs ID - The use of /me to present a form of identification is considered powergaming.

We recognize that some players may see this as a nerf to their gameplay loop, however, rest assured we are positive that any concerns towards this change has an easy and plausible response. (ie. ISD presenting ID? All ISD keycards and codenames to date are unclassified - O5 presenting ID? O5 can schedule their movement across site, with other departments- as well as, being vouched for by their Alpha-1 escort presenting ID)

Thanks,
Requis & Senior Server Leadership