Rule Suggestion Change it so that "private" internal communications channels are treated as "addressed to" vs "encrypted"

[Ratman99]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Makes it so the private internal channels, eg <E-11-Nu-7> are treated as addressed to, not private between addressor and addressee so the information is actionable by people in the overarching comms channel/s. NOTE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH O-COMMS

Edit: Another example to make it clear(er), if someone were to go <CL4> 008 is out, in CL3 comms, every CL3 can see it and take action on it, vs now where only CL4 can see it. So <XX> becomes a formal way to format a address to a specific thing vs actually being treated as private between the addressor and addressee as is now.

<br>Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I dont think so
<br>Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Will cut down on meta bait
Will cut down on comms clutter
May make role play to do with communications more interesting
<br>Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
It may make private comms a bit more of a hassle until people adjust to it.
<br>Based on the Positives &amp; Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I believe switching <xx-xx> in c comm to be a formalized address system vs a "treated as encrypted" between assessor and addressee would cut down on meta-bait and other iffy behavior, if someone wants a private chat, they can do it in person, set up a radio freq or use a phone, rather than use /c <me-you> "Lets breech 008".

 

[Emilia Fοddg]

...What?

 

[Rion]

I believe he wants the "private" comms to actually be private so only SOP and CI can see their comms message thing they do in open comms

 

[YandereMuffin]

Make it so the private internal channels, eg <E-11-Nu-7> are treated as addressed to, not fully private so the information is actionable by people in the overarching comms channel/s. NOTE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH O-COMMS

So just like an E-11 saying "/oc Hello Nu-7, Can you do XYZ for us?" instead of "/c <E-11 - Nu-7> Can you do XYZ for us?"

This is very confusingly written in my opinion.

 

[Ratman99]

So just like an E-11 saying "/oc Hello Nu-7, Can you do XYZ for us?" instead of "/c <E-11 - Nu-7> Can you do XYZ for us?"

This is very confusingly written in my opinion.

its confusing for me to explain, but i dont think we have defined it. As i have made you understand in DM's this is more for public benefit plus a picture:


This is what i am referring to [picture <SOP>], now granted i have a problem with this, but my suggestion initially excluded O-comms, more to mean the set up channels between GOI to talk privately. So for simplicity i am keeping it to /c comms. (in this explanation)

I think everyone should be able to see anything written in the comm lines they have access to, the whole <XXX> Encryption thing should just be treated as a formalized address system vs "we cant see it ICly". I have seen people metabait on it, use these when they have private channels etc etc. Like a CL4 addressing CL4's on CL3 comms, A1 used to do the "add them to the list" meme in /c etc etc. For IC comms (PM's are OOC), you have, a phone you can ring, you can summon them to a location to talk in person, or ring a office etc if you want a private chat vs using /c <me-you>.


Now in the picture example, i think O-comms should be reserved only if used from a X to Y, so if someone does this[as shown in picture], everyone who has access to open comms should be able to see it ICly, he could have just used /sop to talk on SOP comms.

 

[Tub]

Probably the most confusing suggestion I've read until the explanation. So you just want secure comms to be similar to pinging someone in discord where it's meant for the person you're pinging but everyone can read it?

 

[Ratman99]

Probably the most confusing suggestion I've read until the explanation. So you just want secure comms to be similar to pinging someone in discord where it's meant for the person you're pinging but everyone can read it?

If that anology works then yes. I find the current encrypted line thing more confusing than this.

 

[Proximo1021]

If that anology works then yes. I find the current encrypted line thing more confusing than this.

That doesn't really sound like a good idea, what if its like /c3 [S-Site Advisor] Did you approve of a 610 stuff. It really feels like it would make info breaching really easy

 

[Ratman99]

That doesn't really sound like a good idea, what if its like /c3 [S-Site Advisor] Did you approve of a 610 stuff. It really feels like it would make info breaching really easy

i don't know what S means here, but that withstanding.

Kind of a split, it shouldn't lead to info breching as you shoudlnt be nattering about CL4 things on a CL3 line to begin with when you have CL4 chat, CL3 doesnt need to know about these, nor shouldnt know about this as it would just lead to metagaming. This applies to many if not all jobs as there are MANY secure ways to talk to specfic groups of people. (not withstanding if you dont share a secure comms line/need to talk to them specfically you can ask to meet up, use the radio if you have one, or use a phone)

And 2, kind of the point, that if someone goes /c [CL4] "get to 008 the zombies are spreading", it will be deemed a IC info breech and be punsiahble in chracter vs leading to OOC punsihment if you act on it. As that should be reserved for CL4 comms or specfic unit comms. vs being able to write what ever nonsense and be protected by it being deemed a "encrypted communication"


I just dont see the logic int his system, both for RP and utility. RP wise, its encrypted comms in a top secret site any personell can set up, utility wise its just a formalised way of going "hey you, come help", when that would suffice vs the <XX-YY>. Not withstanding my comments about metabait.

 

[ripjaw567]

I am going to -support

"Kind of a split, it shouldn't lead to info breching as you shoudlnt be nattering about CL4 things on a CL3 line to begin with when you have CL4 chat, CL3 doesnt need to know about these, nor shouldnt know about this as it would just lead to metagaming" - There is a few CL3 roles that have knowledge on CL4 SCPs - they do not have CL4 comms. That is why you SECURE a comms to someone who can confirm information. A great example being ISD or SCUs.

If an SCU is helping run the checkpoint because of a lack of E-11 for example - they have no way to verify testing on CL4 SCPs if this gets accepted - they don't have a specific comms line that other CL3's cannot see. That is why Secure Comms exist.

Lets change it a tiny bit now - a CL3 Researcher was properly briefed on say SCP-079 for a test. When they go and move to get their test - and they decide they want to check something with their Executive (A CL4 RSD member), now the only way they can do it is either A) End their test, go find the Executive in person, pull them to the side and ask the question or B) Hope and pray the executive is not busy and can head down to SCP-079 within a reasonable timeframe. Instead of just /c3 {Me>Executive Researchers} Hey I was curious about [X] with 079 - I know you said [Y] but how does this relate to [Z]?

(as an example)

This is just an unneeded modification, any points made are in regards to the US Server.

 

[Porkchop]

A little bit confusing. But if i understand it right you want something like "/C <E11> 008 is breaches" they everyone can see not just e11?

In that case that would remove private messaging like "/c3 <Me - You> Hello meet me at cafeteria we need to talk about 008"

That would limit rp for the idea of removing metabait i dont think its worth it so -support

 

[Ratman99]

I am going to -support

"Kind of a split, it shouldn't lead to info breching as you shoudlnt be nattering about CL4 things on a CL3 line to begin with when you have CL4 chat, CL3 doesnt need to know about these, nor shouldnt know about this as it would just lead to metagaming" - There is a few CL3 roles that have knowledge on CL4 SCPs - they do not have CL4 comms. That is why you SECURE a comms to someone who can confirm information. A great example being ISD or SCUs.

If an SCU is helping run the checkpoint because of a lack of E-11 for example - they have no way to verify testing on CL4 SCPs if this gets accepted - they don't have a specific comms line that other CL3's cannot see. That is why Secure Comms exist.

Lets change it a tiny bit now - a CL3 Researcher was properly briefed on say SCP-079 for a test. When they go and move to get their test - and they decide they want to check something with their Executive (A CL4 RSD member), now the only way they can do it is either A) End their test, go find the Executive in person, pull them to the side and ask the question or B) Hope and pray the executive is not busy and can head down to SCP-079 within a reasonable timeframe. Instead of just /c3 {Me>Executive Researchers} Hey I was curious about [X] with 079 - I know you said [Y] but how does this relate to [Z]?

(as an example)

This is just an unneeded modification, any points made are in regards to the US Server.

There are a very few CL3 roles that in principle know CL4 information. (on the off chance it crops up maybe a exeption can be made, or some reworking on the comms lines they get)

In the SCU example, E11 should be there as they have the overide on the door, and nothing stops the SCU from using their own comms to ask for a superior to contact E11 on a secure line (E11 or MTF) or just ask on CL3 comms, as asking if somones allowed to test on a SCP isnt a info breech. Something like this should be worked out before letting somone take over duties.

Researcher example, ideally, all questions about a SCP should be asked BEFORE the test is conducted and you go down to its chamber, so if you dont know something its kind of on you not preparing properly, but in the listed options, you forgot C, which is contact them on /rsd and just not info breech* vs somehow making a encrypted line to a indiviudal or department they arent in. Or ask them to go to a phone and you ring them.


* At least if you do accidnetally info breech its to a smaller audience, kind of the reason why specfic departments have their own communication lines, so they can communicate with each other.

A little bit confusing. But if i understand it right you want something like "/C <E11> 008 is breaches" they everyone can see not just e11?

In that case that would remove private messaging like "/c3 <Me - You> Hello meet me at cafeteria we need to talk about 008"

That would limit rp for the idea of removing metabait i dont think its worth it so -support

That seems to be the jist of it yes, everyone would be able to act on these private messages, and it just serves as a formal way of going "yo E11"

Not seeing how it would impact RP, as the less potetionally meta information you leak the harder it is to metagame (un)intentionally. Its just making it so people have to actually use the comms lines they are given vs somehow hijacking another departments or making a encrypted channel.

 

[Avery Snow]

This makes remote secure comms impossible. While that can make RP more interesting, It could also be really annoying.
If we had pagers for the phones and they had a easy way to verify identity I'd be for it as that provides a alternative. But with how the current system is, there's no alternative. Especially since there's no practical way to verify who's on the phone with you (Without Metagaming)
-Support for the suggestion as it is.

 

[Aaron Hench]

He- Hell naw

 

[Porkchop]

That seems to be the jist of it yes, everyone would be able to act on these private messages, and it just serves as a formal way of going "yo E11"

Not seeing how it would impact RP, as the less potetionally meta information you leak the harder it is to metagame (un)intentionally. Its just making it so people have to actually use the comms lines they are given vs somehow hijacking another departments or making a encrypted channel.

I have seen a lot of rp being creates between 2 people with hidden comms. Its not hijacking another department by doing "/E11 <Me - You> i think the ethics committee eats babies"

Stuff like this wile not being super common shouldent be removed for a non issue. Just becuse you havent seen that rp doesnt mean it doesnt happen i have seen it happen a lot most of the time its in their own department comms or cl4 comms.

The entire issue is really small and what it would remove just isent worth it at all.

 

[Ratman99]

I have seen a lot of rp being creates between 2 people with hidden comms. Its not hijacking another department by doing "/E11 <Me - You> i think the ethics committee eats babies"

Stuff like this wile not being super common shouldent be removed for a non issue. Just becuse you havent seen that rp doesnt mean it doesnt happen i have seen it happen a lot most of the time its in their own department comms or cl4 comms.

The entire issue is really small and what it would remove just isent worth it at all.

I dont see it really impeding much if its banned, and i lean towards the other side, that the little RP you get from this specfically that cant be done via other means doesnt outweigh misuse etc.

 

[Porkchop]

I dont see it really impeding much if its banned, and i lean towards the other side, that the little RP you get from this specfically that cant be done via other means doesnt outweigh misuse etc.

It definitely would and remove a lot of fun. Why not just charge the people that are actually metabaiting?

To be clear this would remove the few people using it to "cluster" other peoples comms and people metabaiting.

But would remove rp. Even not a lot it doesnt seems worth it in my opinion.

I would say just report people metabaiting its still against the rules and if there is a group of people cluttering up your comms then just pm them and ask if they could stop doing that.