Leaderboard

We should make the Anti-CQC. Anti-CQC Kick heals brain damage of downed targets. This way, Blueshields can cure the stupidity of their principals. Absolutely not. Blueshield already is a stupidly powerful job. It's not hard power, I guess, like having better armour or weapons. They are, in fact, a security officer minus in terms of gear. However, they have some stupid soft power. Roundstart lethals, "do whatever" SOP that makes it stupidly hard to hold them accountable for anything IC without CentComm involvement, captains granting them AA for no good reason whatsoever and certainty that they are not an antagonist making them straight-up invisible to at least 80% of security players. This combined with the cool factor of bold text, unique drip and being the only confirmed lieutenant on the station makes many Blueshields absolutely insufferable and powertrippy. Consider this and ask yourself is it a good idea to give Blueshields more mechanical power. I am of the opinion we should nerf their soft power. Banning captains from granting AA to anyone without a valid cause would be a good start, I'd say, but that's not the topic of this thread.

As many of you know, it really isn't a secret, staff place a phrase within our rules which we use to verify that a user has read the rules entirely. If you didn't know, then surprise! There's a phrase we've hidden there to do that. What most of you don't know, even though it is a bit of common sense, is why we use this method of verification when its rather easy to by-pass. All you have to do is go to the appeals section and read a few to find the phrase pretty easily, saves time on reading right? Well here's why its a very bad idea to do so. It cheats you, not us. People may think they're pulling one over on us by not reading the rules and providing a phrase from an appeal however, all it does is make things more difficult for the individual. When they break the rules next, which they will, and they're back in the appeals section asking for another chance, we're gonna ask why they'd broken the rules despite having read them (Especially damning if the offense happens close to a recently accepted appeal). If they say they've read them, then we think the individual is unwilling to follow the rules which tanks their appeal. If they said they haven't despite providing the phrase, they lied to us in their previous appeal, also tanking the chances of them getting the next appeal accepted. Either way, it just serves to screw them over and not staff. Anyone caught in a lie can tell you how difficult it is to regain trust afterwards and Staff are naturally suspicious when it comes to individuals who violate the rules, lying to us is just a surefire way of making sure you don't play here. We also will, from time to time, change this phrase in the rules, not only to ensure they're read but to also make sure that individuals who slip up from time to time (Hey it happens to all of us, we're human after all) will refresh themselves on the rules. So don't take the easy way out. Read our rules fully. The easy way is just going to screw you over later and we want you to play here and have fun, not forced to sit outside the party because you were too lazy to read.