Ambiguous asset rules

This line from the official rules is ambiguous on two matters: "All heavy assets are squad-specific. The first correctly named squad gets the asset." There is no clarification as to who owns the asset in the case that there is no specific squad named for that asset, nor is there any direction as to whether an asset squad can willingly lend their vehicles to other squads.

On both these matters, I have witnessed admins go either way depending on the day. Sometimes, an inf squad is allowed to run APC's in the absence of an APC squad; yesterday my trying that as a squad lead resulted in my driver and gunner being kicked without warning. Meanwhile, admins themselves often run TRANS from the CAS squad temporarily.

Sometimes I run APC's from tank squad with APC squad's permission; however I've seen players completely unwilling to run assets -even with permission- for fear of admin bans, and I've been hassled for it myself.

I've read this post, make no mistake. However, as a user I have to argue that -in at least this case- the subjective rules -rather than lending admins the breathing room to make decisions based on the situation- allow for the empowerment of trolls and the disempowerment of the common user. Every time we, as players, wander into the "grey area" we are putting ourselves under the guillotine, whether that's building a four-man fob-hunting squad, a squad leader temporarily assuming the role of trans, or using an APC for transport where Choppers and trucks are insufficient. Theoretically, these activities should be tacitly permitted by admins to allow for a more interesting game, but in practice the stickler admins and the trolls who use !r on their rivals end up defining the space.

If even one admin has a particularly stringent view of a rule far apart from his colleagues, then that singular admin defines the space. Why should I assume the risk of a grey area task that 80% of admins are okay with if I'm going to slowly become "that repeat offender" to one admin.

With my thought process laid out, here's what I would put as a revision to the existing rule:

*All heavy assets are squad-specific. The *oldest* correctly named squad gets the asset.
*All squads are able to lend the assets under their AUTHORITY to other squads by publicly declaring it in TEAM CHAT.
*An asset squad may recall any of their vehicle from other squads for ANY REASON by asking in TEAM CHAT. Borrowing squads should be allowed a reasonable TIME TO RESPOND and a reasonable TIME TO RETURN. This may include delivering infantry or supplies before turning to base, or waiting until a firefight is concluded before retreating. Failure to comply should be reported to admins.
*In the case that no squad exists for a specific asset then an adjacent asset squad assumes AUTHORITY for that asset. With no APC squad, TANK squad -and only TANK squad- assumes AUTHORITY and vice versa. With no TRANS squad, CAS squad -and only CAS squad- assumes AUTHORITY and vice versa.
*In the case that no similar asset squad exists ADMINS assume AUTHORITY over relevant assets.

There. A reasonable, linear path to borrowing assets. All lending decisions go to one person, rather than a crowd of people who all have veto power. Even then, asset squads retain all power over their toys. And suddenly, there's only two tightly controlled grey areas. One when a player borrows an asset without knowing to ask, which still comes back to the same place the by-the-book-approach does: does the asset squad leader want to allow that borrowing or not? A second grey area exists when an asset squad leader wants his toys back, but there's no way around it; only an admin should be able to determine if a player is using an asset responsibly. The public logs in team chat also help keep things fair. People will remember if an SL lends an asset just long enough for it to be driven to the first flag; while no official mechanism should be in place, being an asshat still gets you treated like an asshat.

Maybe we'll even get to see MTLB's used for a practical purpose.

The flaw you propose is only valid under the assumption that asset SL's vacillate to trick would-be-users into incriminating themselves. Under most conditions, the report will take as much work as does now. Remember that admins would, under this setup, only get involved when an SL specifically called admins in, giving admins the ultimate say without taking on the micro.

When a report goes to an admin, the following things have to be checked off: if the complaint is claiming that the squad is using the asset without permission then in order,
*check to see if the asset is being returned, if it is not being returned, move to the next step
*check to see if it is being used with full crew, if it is fully crewed, move to the next step. If it is not crewed and not returned, then kick.
*check if person reporting is the relevant asset squad lead, if yes then move to next step. If no, then you're done.
*ask team chat if permission was given. If answer is yes, then order them to RTB (after all, the asset SL is asking for it back, effectively. Players can call bullshit on abusive asset SL's in forums). If answer is no, then kick.

If the complaint is that the asset is being used improperly, then in order,
*check to see that the asset is being returned, if it is not being returned, move to the next step
*check check to see if the asset is fully crewed, if it is not being returned and not fully crewed, then kick.

That's hardly more dramatic than the current setup. It's only if someone comes to the forums that admins need to trawl through text logs, and in that situation, a quick ctrl+f on both players' names should be able to find the answer.

The obvious flaw in this system is that players will lie about having/not having permission to cover for their friends. But this should only be considered in forum appeals; a majority consensus will do just fine at the time that you're doling out kicks and ban's.

This method is undeniably more draining on the admins; more reports will come in from the simple fact that more people will borrow assets. Additionally, when a report comes in it will require about a minute's worth of extra attention. I think that, with the benefits to gameplay, and the professionalism it encourages in players, this system is a worthwhile consideration.

This line: "In the case that no similar asset squad exists ADMINS assume AUTHORITY over relevant assets" is probably a bridge too far though.

Do you have any reasons to shelve my proposal on principal, or is is your stance based purely on practicability?