Content Suggestion Foundation Clerks

[Emilia Foddg]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:​

Add a new non-combative, 2-slot Site Staff job called 'Foundation Clerk' (or just Clerk) - They would use existing models with suits like Site Admin. Site Command, Dpt. Manager & some other jobs do, which may need workshopping to find any variants that are distinct enough from existing jobs to reduce/mitigate confusion (and/or create additional variants ala MC&D changes that are sufficiently distinct enough for this purpose, if feasible).

This job would have the requirements of:

• Both a (significant) level requirement (I'm thinking something in the ballpark of 60 Support, 80 Total? The exact numbers can be hashed out to make something reasonably walled off) and a !jobapprove which would follow some kind of tryout procedure, similar to other jobs such as DEA/ISD/GSD/RSD/Medical/etc. wherein their spawn loadout would be severely limited in the same way, no keycard, etc. Can't leave whatever room they spawn in until jobapproved.

OR

• Forum application requirement behind an application post to be made in Misc. Applications.

Either of which can be bypassed by holding an Overseer/Ethics Assistant whitelist (however, if they lose the whitelist, they similarly lose access to this job if they haven't otherwise passed the above listed requirements.)

This would be a CL3 job and their intended role in RP would be as a non-combative, non-specialised, general clerical assistant to all departments, as well as Site Administration & Site Command. I can't particularly think of any specific RP purpose that would be perfect for Clerks, but the general idea is that they could be a busybody that helps with the general workload of any department that needs it. They could also be delegated authority over the other Site Staff jobs (by Site Admin/Site Command) and would be the first port of call to hold Janitors, Chefs, Engineers, IT Technicians & Technical Experts to account (although I don't think they shoulda be able to directly job ban them? Maybe something like, they can initiate a job ban request for a specific person, to be approved by a Sr. CL4 or whoever. If this specific job banning idea is pursued, it may be prudent to consider adding that to both types of Assistant, as well).

If the player flagging on holds an Overseer/Ethics Assistant whitelist, they instead spawn with a CL4 keycard and are considered Jr. CL4 in the same way that Assistants are. Assistant WL holders would not and should not have priority over this job compared to non-Assistant WL holders.

In terms of the Global Base Hierarchy as outlined in Rule 4.01, Clerks would normally come under "All other personnel," unless under direct orders from O5/Ethics, in which case they would be higher, but I'm not sure where they would be in that instance. Potentially below Department Directors. This would also need to be something that could be worked out and may need an alteration to the aforementioned rule once it is. I'm also not sure how the Assistant thing above would apply to this, either.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Although many people have asked for some kind of managerial Site Staff role in the past, I doubt anyone has asked for this specifically. This is intended to resolve numerous issues at once, most chiefly the fact that Job Slot Change suggestions have been blanket denied ala the FAS for a very long time now,

That the community still continue to ask for slot increases to Assistant jobs. This is also something I attempted to tackle myself in the past, but was denied with good reason. I have since thought of this solution and am presenting it in the hopes that it may be workable.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

• + For existing Assistant WL holders, a QoL measure that should alleviate some community frustration surrounding Assistant job unavailability, where Assistants are queuing for a chance to get on their role
  
  
• + For non-WL holders who are interested in the day-to-day affairs of department management roles (Consultants, GSD Captain/CoS (outside of their combative affairs obviously), Dpt. Leaders, Site Admin, Site Command, etc.) but may be:
  
  
  • On the fence about committing to something they may not be fully interested in
    
    
  • Not knowledgeable enough of what their target role(s) does and wants to learn more about the kind of RP they do
    
    
  • Not experienced enough and desire relevant experience to aid them in their confidence of applying themselves for that role and/or good experience to quote for their application(s) for that role
    
    
• + Potentially more people (or at least, more available at once) to help out with potentially failing/faltering departments
  
  
• + An easier, more accessible and player-friendly way in to the kind of RP that Dpt. Leaders, Site Admin & Site Command do, which may serve as a form of (partial) stepping stone into Jr. CL4 jobs (Can you believe I still don't know what Dpt. Leaders or Site Admin really do?)
  
  
• + Potentially an easier way to punish minging/misbehaving Janitors/Chefs/E&TS Roles (As to my understanding, only Site Admin can realistically do anything about them and even though they should when asked about it, they generally tend to not)
  
  
• + More roleplay opportunities (Potentially more (hopefully diplomatic) roleplay for GOIs too, as Clerks could potentially be sent as proxies to deal with GOI affairs in some circumstances, rather than just being donowalled by DEA)
  
  
• + More targets for CI (Potentially more interesting targets & roleplay for CI, too)
  
  
• +The Americans may finally learn how to say the word 'clerk'

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

• - Job bloat
  
  
• - Implementation time
  
  
• - Minging
  
  
• - Spreads out server pop
  
  
• - [To be remembered either when I remember it or when someone conveniently says it in a reply and I'm like "Oh yeah, that was the one negative I thought of and forgot"]

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

I'm not writing a diatribe on a suggestion I know will be denied. From what I sit, the general concept appears justified, and the reasoning pure. Have these instead to think about in relation, concerns which this is generally aimed at tackling, but I acknowledge does not fully mitigate/resolve:

It's kind of unreasonable to expect someone whose time may already be limited for other reasons, to try and get them to stay active on roles that they are unlikely to be even able to flag onto in the first place by virtue of them being full. This is especially true in the case of Assistants where there are 2 slots each and no limit on the amount of people whitelistable.

Far too many occurrences before I became an Overseer where I'd log onto the server, check to see if OSA was full, see it was, only to realise "oh guess i cant play" and proceed to log off. Even now, currently we have 9 Overseer Assistants, and whilst that doesn't seem like too much, some of these people only have OSA as their whitelist, so for a good chunk of them, they have to shove each other on & off the job solely to play on the server.

Obviously I'm not sure as to the amount of Assistants that EC or on US both O5 & EC and whether this is a problem, but for UK O5, it's really becoming a noticeable issue.

"Issues on the Site tend to flare up all at once, and sometimes two Assistants isn't enough, and bottlenecking occurs. Having more Assistants eases the likeliness of that bottleneck, which DRASTICALLY eases some very fixable pressure on SC and lets them do their job better and spend their time on the Server more efficiently."

Site Administration exist for this though? They should be your bottleneck/filter not the OSAs or ECAs, expanding the assistant slots is actually incredibly detrimental to the health of Site Administration as a whole. I do get why you want it Cade, I just don't think you are seeing the bigger picture here

This is something that I'd say holds weight if Site Admin was still the same as to when you were here, for sure. However, I have never stopped on my attempt to try and continue further differentiating SA from FCOM in their gameplay loop. Hell, yesterday with O5 relinquishing RSD control for example. The things that people on the Site need to go to us for are becoming very much *unique* to us at this point in terms of those issues actually requiring people to need us and not just trying to skip a rung in the ladder on the CoC and being told to piss off for it.

I fully get why this sounds more like a bad idea from your POV, but to me I think if SA want to continue flourishing, trying to use them as our delegates in this day and age ISN'T the play and they need to keep having more freedom from us, which in turn is where having the wish for a third assistant comes from.

EDIT: Meant to include this -

So many times people are waiting to get on the slots to do RP, and staff say 'You can ask to be flagged on' but then refuse and state 'ask someone to flag off' but a lot of Assistant's do not have other roles to flag onto. Meaning that RP with the people that need those specific Assistants has to be halted for anywhere between an hour to like 6 hours. It doesn't just affect the people wanting to play Assistant. It affects the people that are having RP with specific assistants and need them online to progress in their RP also. I can recall so many times that someones RP has ended up having to end prematurely with no actual ending because the slot has been unavailable.

SC are not meant to be the focus on the server. That is the reason their job slots were reduced in the first place.

This is simply the idea I thought of. Whether or not this does or doesn't work, I wash my hands of this mess. Do as you will.

 

[Shaunpai]

I think Content really needs to evaluate what kind of jobs we currently have. Site Admin currently moonlights as Department Liaisons as well, overseeing departments and giving a direct line of contact from SA to the respective departments. I think Clerks could also occupy that role instead of taking time from whatever SA do.

Also please give us CL3 techie and call it Custodian or something

+Soup

 

[Ganch]

Also please give us CL3 techie

HELL YEAH GIVE THEM AUGERS TOO AND PERMANENT LIQUID ANIMA

 

[Advil Smith]

Level 60 support wtf….

 

[Average member podidski]

-Support For Application (like just make it CL4 if you want it Application only)
-Neutral leading to +Support If level requement is changed to least 25 level support 100 total level (60 level support like what.)

Job is good looking and it can be even used for requement for Site Admin appliction (Site Advisor) if added. But level request for support level is too high for everyone, even for grinders like me so level 25 and rising the total level to 100 is good idea for me in my opinion.

If the player flagging on holds an Overseer/Ethics Assistant whitelist, they instead spawn with a CL4 keycard and are considered Jr. CL4 in the same way that Assistants are. Assistant WL holders would not and should not have priority over this job compared to non-Assistant WL holders.

This would need devwork because how the non-whitelsit job can delect other whitelists from other job is i don't know about.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

This would need devwork because how the non-whitelsit job can delect other whitelists from other job is i don't know about.

AFAIK, this is a planned feature for other roles such as MTF where COs can flag on non-Officer jobs and have their CL4. I'm not sure whether it's implemented, scrapped or whatever, but I imagine this would work in the same way as I don't think that, even though we see those things as semantically connected - I don't think they're programmatically connected in that same way that it could only be MTFs?

Level 60 support wtf….

-Neutral leading to +Support If level requement is changed to least 25 level support 100 total level (60 level support like what.)

Listen, I'm not balance Jesus. That's Auburn.

If you ignore literally everything else I said around that part, yes, I can see that 60 Support is pretty stupid.

Job is good looking and it can be even used for requement for Site Admin appliction (Site Advisor) if added.

Not so much required, more "Would look good in a Site Advisor/Assistant app and reflect well of the applicant," a somewhat soft-counter to the whole weird Assistant stepping stone-esque into Site Admin, that we have now.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

co

I think Content really needs to evaluate what kind of jobs we currently have. Site Admin currently moonlights as Department Liaisons as well, overseeing departments and giving a direct line of contact from SA to the respective departments. I think Clerks could also occupy that role instead of taking time from whatever SA do.

Also please give us CL3 techie and call it Custodian or something

+Soup

containment engineer containment engineer containment engineer

 

[Acey]

+SUPPORT
LET'S FUCKING GOOOOO

Real talk though, I love this idea and it's rare for me to express such takes for suggestions. This would be a great position for anyone wanting to further immerse themselves in the RP elements of the Foundation, allowing themselves to be attached to any department / group and assist them in whatever means necessary - I'd go as far as making their own comms line which they can use to talk to higher ranking members of staff ( I.e. SA, Assistants and FCOM ). I'd personally put them under the direct orders of SA and although it might be biased, hear me out: The role this 'clerk' would play in would be on that focuses on any or all departments, meaning it'd mirror the work of SA, essentially making them SA assistants but without the hassle.

I'm split on the level requirements / WL thing.. But I'm less fond of the idea of forum Applications for a CL3 role. Obviously the levels will be tweaked to match the position but who decides on the WL? I'd assume SA+ but still.. it might be hard to acquire it sometimes as it's hard to present yourself to the specific people. I believe that's something that needs to be elaborated on as it'd be very good to know the process behind choosing said people.

I like the idea of them having CL4s when having assistant whitelists, it truly helps maintain RP as well as their authority whilst not directly giving them the role.

I actually disagree with your hierarchy idea, as an RP-heavy noncombative and executive role I believe they should definitely hold more authority. I'd personally put them directly under JR CL4 roles, making them SR CL3 ( Without the Assistant WL ). These individuals serve as a helping role and shouldn't be barred from it.. especially by Security Staff, MTF Operatives and ISD / DEA Agents. Also just by having a high entry point they'd already be above all those roles level-wise, especially by being a WL role.
( Entry MTFs require Combat Level 20 and Total Level 40 e.g. )

As you mentioned, this role would serve as an amazing opportunity for those wanting to find what they like to explore a little and find their true calling on the server. Ethics or O5, RSD, SA, etc. - People need to be able to explore as well as express their executive abilities without being forced to play certain roles that push them into a specific field.

The comments you added I won't comment on as that'd just be another long yap.

Overall, this is a good idea. I'd frankly include both this one and the 3 assistants one - I doubt it'd impede the server too much as people enjoy both playing combative and noncombative roles and being forced down one single path sucks. This role would allow people to play something fun and noncombative without having to apply on the forums or partake in CL4 duties ( John Old, this might finally be the role for you ). Regardless, people wish to play both and it'd foolish of us to halt this.

God willing they'll listen to this at least...