Content Suggestion Withdrawn

Content Suggestions will be reviewed by Content Team weekly, please allow time as not everything can be reviewed at once.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Withdrawn

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

Add honorary roles for various groups of prestige in Discord that notably require some form of whitelist access, which would grant access to the relevant channels; So for the SCP Discord - Individual MTFs (like an honorary A-1 role would give you access to the standard A-1 channels, E-11 the E-11 channels, etc.), the CL4 channels, w/e else you can reasonably think of - For the network server... Probably not staff stuff like SL or higher channels, because infosec - But I guess a GM role could be fine. I would suggest trialling this out on one server and then slowly rolling it out to others like MRP & DRP?

The SCP server would probably be a decent place to test this, because even though it's the most populated server, which isn't ideal in terms of the volume of requests you'd have to deal with being the highest, it would be ideal in terms of finding issues with it, determining feasibility.

Then it could be handed out to notable individuals who have contributed significantly to that relevant area of the server and are willing to receive it. Then they could... Continue being in those channels, I guess?

Obviously this is more a Platform Team suggestion, but we don't really have any other kind of vector to suggest changes like this, so here it goes.

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

I know people have suggested things relating to Discord roles before, but that's related to either separating out tryout announcements or making entirely new channels like the one in the past for Jr. CL4. But this is not a thing for one specific server. I mean in practice again, you'd test this out on one server, but hopefully my point makes sense.

The closest example of something I can find that is like "Hey, do this for the network, might be cool" would be this active suggestion in the MRP suggestions subforum on creating a moneypot for devs, so that players can incentivise development of specific features by contributing to that features' moneypot. Which uh, is obviously a completely different topic to this and really only shares the "whole network" aspect of the suggestion.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

  • Potentially more contribution to those Discord channels & groups, as well as decreasing disuse.
  • Some people can truly be perennial - Like I wouldn't mind sticking around the E-11 channels, that'd be fine. I know after I resigned, I was given basically an honorary PVT role, but it was removed by some check or something from Platform Team.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

  • Role bloat on an already difficult to manage server.
  • Potential infosec concerns? Especially if that user's account gets compromised.
  • Potentially too much work for too little utility.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

I'm in your walls.

Honestly, this was kinda just an idea I had. I don't particularly think this is a good idea, but I figured that I'd try anyway. I personally don't see reason to accept it, but apparently everything I like is a bad idea and everything I dislike is a good idea so I guess I'm putting the idea forward in case it sticks. It's whatever.
 
Last edited:

Naffen

Senior Administrator
Senior Administrator
SCP-RP Staff
Event Team
Donator
Group Moderator
Apr 11, 2022
393
1
139
91
UK server atleast doesn't have honourary roles, I removed it back when I was Site Director and it's never been a thing since then.
Another issue anyway would be the distinct favouritsm or bias it can have or show with people getting honourary positions. Anyone is able to give ideas or suggestions to a regiment, but directly having a say in a regiment without being in it is not good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Dec 30, 2022
292
78
21
This would be a bit of a pain to add all past O5, ECMs, Reg Command, DPT leaders to the roles but it honestly doesn't sound like a terrible idea it allows people to weigh in on issues with their previous dpts/regiments who have pervious experience in the roles.

+Support
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
-Support
When @Naffen was Site Director he purposefully banned this instance and all other instances of "honorary" ranks. Be it Level-4 and or 3 whitelists, you'll still find minges running loose with trusted roles which hold leadership statue across their respective department(s).
If this happens, then why should honorary roles be a thing - it will simply be a free pass to get power and minge as you go.

I still remember a previously honorary Security Captain hopping on UK and being a major-minge and receiving a 1 week ban while he was playing that role!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Apr 4, 2023
332
128
21
-Support
When @Naffen was Site Director he purposefully banned this instance and all other instances of "honorary" ranks. Be it Level-4 and or 3 whitelists, you'll still find minges running loose with trusted roles which hold leadership statue across their respective department(s).
If this happens, then why should honorary roles be a thing - it will simply be a free pass to get power and minge as you go.

I still remember a previously honorary Security Captain hopping on UK and being a major-minge and receiving a 1 week ban while he was playing that role!
This is about discord roles not Ingame whitelists.
Read a suggestion fully every once and a while Skinner.

Not the worst idea anyway, this is done regardless by Staff or RP leads allowing users to keep roles.
 
This is about discord roles not Ingame whitelists.
Read a suggestion fully every once and a while Skinner.

Not the worst idea anyway, this is done regardless by Staff or RP leads allowing users to keep roles.
I figured this out a while ago no need to get defensive
I still retain my current stance, having people be able to see documents, potential codewords and codes is not a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg
Status
Not open for further replies.