Recent content by JasonTheCheesyGuy

I'm all for customiseability but... Does anyone actually use SCiPNET in this fashion? Personally, the inability for CL4 personnel to edit the file hierarchy combined with the tough navigation makes it unusable. But uh, if people can use this, it doesn't seem like a tough thing to add?

+Support. I have seen this used by people to just be talking in conversation, and as you get no notification that your weapons are being stripped until it is done, it basically just permits for someone to sneakily take away all your shit without you noticing.

+Support. I know, I know, 'We've found a good balance between all roles', but holy heck. We have more SC then their Assistants on site!

Thanks for the response, yep, I was hoping for a little bit of elaboration. You're right in saying that there will be less reasoning to write lore, but as you say this is something that can be managed within the department as is currently done within various groups. You say it would be hellish...

My main concern too, yep. But we already don't have that for MTF units, and as such I think it'll go fine. Nothing beyond Site-Admin/Site-Command supervision. But thats the same for MTF/CI/GOC. At most there is the rank cooldown within Regiments, but waiting a few days is hardly the difficult...

What does this suggestions change/add/remove: This suggestion proposes that the following roles no longer require an application to be submitted, but may rather be promoted into by the relevant department heads. - Internal Security Department Inspector - Security Captain - RSD Executive...

+Support to the revamping that is proposed. As it stands, these bugs will *rapidly* be getting abused by everyone, further stalling RP from taking place.

Not on surface they don't. I do not see this happening even with increased respawn timers. CI have an equipment advantage and a skill advantage (On UK, at least.). I'm not saying those advantages are uncalled for; They are suitable if within the facility, but the fact of the matter is that...

+Support. This change would only affect situations during pure surface combat, during which the concerns of a numbers advantage do not apply. An even playing field between all 3 surface parties is therefore best IMO.

-Sup. SCP-912 is an anomaly, and a dangerous one at that. You do not grant an entity that can go buckwild at any given moment and start randomly massacring site-personnel a keycard. As for the matter relating to who can order its recontainment, this is an in-character case in my book. Per...

-Sup. SCP-912 is an anomaly. Any *rules* based restrictions dictating where one can and cannot go in RP are just stiffling RP in my book. If you feel like using SCP-912 against D-Class shouldn't be allowed in-RP (Fun fact; It isn't on the UK, as its already an FLC violation to weaponise an...

+Support. I've had many interactions with Synergy both IC and OOC, and believe they are perfectly suited to this position.

Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:86507562 - Discord name: Wolfy#8895 - For how long have you played on CG SCP: Since February 2025 - Age: 21 - In what country are you located?: Netherlands - Time zone: CET - Character name(s): Cody Fletcher (Prior OSA), Micheal Barton (Current OSA), Jason Fallwell (Prior...

So, having recently played some E11 my main takeaway from it is as follows: There is no reason to play E11 over any other department. The roleplay that is accessible (Testing assistance/New anomalous interactions) is either handled by other departments or GM-intensive. Furthermore, this...

-support. These area's are, on UK at least, clearly marked as ISD/Invitation only. If someone enters them without permission, just give them one clear order to depart and then arrest them for trespassing. Restrictions such as suggested would make it harder for people to participate in actual...