Rule Suggestion No animalistic models needs to be a rule.

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
TimberedZulu115

TimberedZulu115

Active member
Sep 28, 2025
36
1
21
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adds a new rule to the server PAC3 rules that states no animal traits are allowed for PAC3 models.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, I have not seen any other similar suggestion.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Clear up confusion since the rules are now outdated right now.
Make things easier for everyone involved.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Backlash and reduced activity from certain players.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
As evident in the forums, any animalistic PAC is denied for being animalistic. The staff have stated that they are no longer approving any animal characters and dont plan to for the foreseeable future. Having said that, the rules should be changed to reflect that. It should now be stated in the PAC3 rules that animal models are no longer allowed on the server. I do not believe it is fair for someone to pay for PAC3 access, follow all the necessary rules, including lore, and still have their pac denied for exterior reasons. If the rules stated that no anthro models allowed, that will clear up a lot of confusion and save a lot of time for both players and staff.

Pacs with animalistic traits are being denied on mass with this denial message. The PAC3 rules need to be changed to reflect this. Either that or animal traits need to be allowed again. As of right now, this is a hidden rule that is not on the rulebook and should be added to clear up the confusion. I have nothing against animal traits, I think they are cool as long as they make sense, but the players that want animal traits shouldn't be gaslit into thinking that their pac is allowed when its not.
1759756629898.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 4 Downvote
There is normally no issues with having animalistic traits on pac3’s so long as the lore is properly explained and there is a semblance of realism with them. If you’ve got anomalous powers and the foundation knows about them, you’re probbaly being put into a containment chamber.

If the pac3 is realistic and fits the role alongside the lore, generally we will have no issues with approving it. If it’s something stupid like just some ears poking out of a helmet and isn’t very realistic, that would be denied.

Not gonna leave an opinion, but this is generally our train of thought when considering pac3’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acey
TimberedZulu115 said:
I dont understand. Two of them literally say exactly that. The first's and third one's denials explicitly say the denial reason is because their model features animalistic traits.
Click to expand...

Ah, assuming no edits took, I must've misread, my bad.

And to be honest, I would think there could be more furry models and PAC3s used - I understand why some of them were denied although you're right some of the denial reasons are kinda shoddy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimberedZulu115
Doug said:
There is normally no issues with having animalistic traits on pac3’s so long as the lore is properly explained and there is a semblance of realism with them. If you’ve got anomalous powers and the foundation knows about them, you’re probbaly being put into a containment chamber.

If the pac3 is realistic and fits the role alongside the lore, generally we will have no issues with approving it. If it’s something stupid like just some ears poking out of a helmet and isn’t very realistic, that would be denied.

Not gonna leave an opinion, but this is generally our train of thought when considering pac3’s.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying. But what do you have to say about your fellow staff stating that animalistic traits are no longer allowed on the server?
 
It would seem that some of yall have misunderstood this suggestion. I'll restate it.

Staff have stated that animalistic traits are no longer allowed on the server. This means that the rulebook needs to be updated to say that. As of right now, the rulebook is outdated.
 
TimberedZulu115 said:
I understand what you're saying. But what do you have to say about your fellow staff stating that animalistic traits are no longer allowed on the server?
Click to expand...
A member of server leadership has already given out a reminder about giving proper denial reasons in posts. If you believe a request has been denied due to bias or there isn’t a very good reason, you are welcome to make a staff complaint regarding such.
 
Doug said:
A member of server leadership has already given out a reminder about giving proper denial reasons in posts. If you believe a request has been denied due to bias or there isn’t a very good reason, you are welcome to make a staff complaint regarding such.
Click to expand...
1759756670799.png
Then could you shed some light on this please?
 
TimberedZulu115 said:
View attachment 24385
Then could you shed some light on this please?
Click to expand...
Hiya,

This was from January which I’m confused how this is entirely relevant 8 months later. The ping was from last night I believe shortly after the HMOD meeting I organised to get through all the pac3’s for reference.
 
Doug said:
Hiya,

This was from January which I’m confused how this is entirely relevant 8 months later. The ping was from last night I believe shortly after the HMOD meeting I organised to get through all the pac3’s for reference.
Click to expand...
Thank you,

You did not specify what date that ping was so I was not aware. That denial may be back in January, but they stated that there will be no approvals for the foreseeable future and I did not see any statements that announce any changes to said statement. Having said that. Are you saying that what was stated in that denial is no longer in affect?
Some players are confused on whether or not animal traits are still allowed since the approval rate for them suddenly decreased substantially if not completely after the start of 2025 and the denials do not have good reasoning. "This is not fit for the server" is just a fancy way of saying denied without giving any reason. I do not see a single approval for a pac with animal traits this year, and there are plenty of animalistic pac requests. That is why i made this rule suggestion because anyone who is reading the denials would justifiably think that there is a rule against animal traits, yet the rulebook states otherwise.

There is a pattern that is undeniable. Clowns, ghosts, demons, are approved, but having a simple tail or ears is denied no matter the quality of the pac and lore provided.

You could completely deconstruct my argument by showing an animalisic/anthro pac request that has been approved since the start of 2025. I will stop here if you can please show me one.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure how the SCP Foundation would even go about allowing personnel and seniors to have medical history that they are, for example, "a living, hybrid human/fox", and allow them to walk around the facility unbothered; to say the least of things - that that is concerning to even begin with if you think that's realistic in any way shape or form.

The same doctrine applies for animal-like accessories and characteristics, why would the SCP Foundation; an elite, top secret organisation working on the future of humanity, allow this when everybody else's attire is strictly professional and becoming of actual personnel? Do you enter the Pentagon and notice military seniors and generals walking around with cat ears, a tail at their back or something even more ridiculous?

I shed no light to hate or discrimination, nor do I stand for it; it however, concerns me that this could be normalized as regular, professional attire or medical backgrounds that would be considered "realistic" for the SCP universe. Even then, some people get away with it, and it's not to say in-depth, thorough lore detailing how this has become the final product, does not stand on grounds for approval and allow the player to thereby have what they want, with their effort input. People who write high-quality tales and lore about their becoming of something more than human, or a different attire, should absolutely receive what they ask for.

I can't even begin wrapping my head around how some PAC3s had made it into approval, let alone even become a thought for some people as something fitting inside this universe, and I just hope that withholding ridiculous, bizzare or otherwise unconvential attire through animalistic traits, accessories or such should not be an every day thing.
Neutral Support, definently leaning into a positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fyzar
Skinner said:
I'm not really sure how the SCP Foundation would even go about allowing personnel and seniors to have medical history that they are, for example, "a living, hybrid human/fox", and allow them to walk around the facility unbothered; to say the least of things - that that is concerning to even begin with if you think that's realistic in any way shape or form.

The same doctrine applies for animal-like accessories and characteristics, why would the SCP Foundation; an elite, top secret organisation working on the future of humanity, allow this when everybody else's attire is strictly professional and becoming of actual personnel? Do you enter the Pentagon and notice military seniors and generals walking around with cat ears, a tail at their back or something even more ridiculous?

I shed no light to hate or discrimination, nor do I stand for it; it however, concerns me that this could be normalized as regular, professional attire or medical backgrounds that would be considered "realistic" for the SCP universe. Even then, some people get away with it, and it's not to say in-depth, thorough lore detailing how this has become the final product, does not stand on grounds for approval and allow the player to thereby have what they want, with their effort input. People who write high-quality tales and lore about their becoming of something more than human, or a different attire, should absolutely receive what they ask for.

I can't even begin wrapping my head around how some PAC3s had made it into approval, let alone even become a thought for some people as something fitting inside this universe, and I just hope that withholding ridiculous, bizzare or otherwise unconvential attire through animalistic traits, accessories or such should not be an every day thing.
Neutral Support, definently leaning into a positive.
Click to expand...
You got the spirit, but I actually fully support animalistic characters as long as it makes sense. If we can have pacs that are clowns, ghosts, demons, then animalistic ones should also be allowed.
The thing is, the opposite of what you're saying is happening. All animalistic pacs are now being denied. Because of this, they need to change the rules to reflect that. The staff say no animalistic pacs, but the rulebook says that they are allowed. That needs to change. They either need to allow animalistic pacs, or change the rules.
 
Last edited:
TimberedZulu115 said:
View attachment 24385
Then could you shed some light on this please?
Click to expand...

As Doug said, this is from January, staff and the server changes as time goes on - there was no need to write a formal note that this was no longer a rule because this was a singular PAC3 denial and not a grand rule over all.

Every PAC3 and lore request is also different, some are simply not as reasonable as others even if those others may not also be super reasonable itself. It is all up to specific and some things fit and some don't.

This PAC3 was literally a basic UNGOC workshop model with a tail poking out, this is vastly different a model with a head replacement of an animal. One is much more just a "this is a human with a tail" and the other being "this is an animal-person hybrid" - to be frank it is likely for your PAC3 to be denied if it is just a tail added to an existing in-game model...
 
Skinner said:
I'm not really sure how the SCP Foundation would even go about allowing personnel and seniors to have medical history that they are, for example, "a living, hybrid human/fox", and allow them to walk around the facility unbothered; to say the least of things - that that is concerning to even begin with if you think that's realistic in any way shape or form.

The same doctrine applies for animal-like accessories and characteristics, why would the SCP Foundation; an elite, top secret organisation working on the future of humanity, allow this when everybody else's attire is strictly professional and becoming of actual personnel? Do you enter the Pentagon and notice military seniors and generals walking around with cat ears, a tail at their back or something even more ridiculous?

I shed no light to hate or discrimination, nor do I stand for it; it however, concerns me that this could be normalized as regular, professional attire or medical backgrounds that would be considered "realistic" for the SCP universe. Even then, some people get away with it, and it's not to say in-depth, thorough lore detailing how this has become the final product, does not stand on grounds for approval and allow the player to thereby have what they want, with their effort input. People who write high-quality tales and lore about their becoming of something more than human, or a different attire, should absolutely receive what they ask for.

I can't even begin wrapping my head around how some PAC3s had made it into approval, let alone even become a thought for some people as something fitting inside this universe, and I just hope that withholding ridiculous, bizzare or otherwise unconvential attire through animalistic traits, accessories or such should not be an every day thing.
Neutral Support, definently leaning into a positive.
Click to expand...
1759785083250.png
1759785149524.png
Happy dolphin rainbow.png


I don't understand your point about them "not allowing" people who are not strictly only human to work within the foundation, at the end of the day we are roleplaying within a world where anything is possible but at the same time we as the foundation are one of the only things making sure the world doesnt end, if they actually roleplay with their animalistic traits and whatnot, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed

also its just a game, dont always take it sooooooooooooooo seriously, videogames are meant to be fun and that

-support to suggestion

sources: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/o5-command-dossier https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/kain-pathos-crow-s-author-page
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zen and TimberedZulu115
YandereMuffin said:
As Doug said, this is from January, staff and the server changes as time goes on - there was no need to write a formal note that this was no longer a rule because this was a singular PAC3 denial and not a grand rule over all.

Every PAC3 and lore request is also different, some are simply not as reasonable as others even if those others may not also be super reasonable itself. It is all up to specific and some things fit and some don't.

This PAC3 was literally a basic UNGOC workshop model with a tail poking out, this is vastly different a model with a head replacement of an animal. One is much more just a "this is a human with a tail" and the other being "this is an animal-person hybrid" - to be frank it is likely for your PAC3 to be denied if it is just a tail added to an existing in-game model...
Click to expand...
You are confusing me. You just saw multiple pac denials saying the same thing and admited that the denials were shoddy. The ones that I sent you. That was not a one instance denial. I can send more if you want. You and others keep saying that it has nothing to do with animal pacs but the overall quality and lore, yet(forgive me if I sound like a douche) I am the only one who has provided multiple sources of evidence that clearly proves the opposite. I will say it again, the pattern is undeniable. The proof is right there, in actual writing.

Also, if that denial was not a grand rule over all, then why did it state exactly that?

"furry PAC3s, anything related to them (tails, cat ears, paws etc) are not something we will accept or look at accepting anytime in the future. This doesn't fit with our vision and aesthetics that we want in our servers."

It was after this denial that other denials were giving similar reasons. It has only changed recently to "This will not fit into the server." That new reason isn't any better and is actually worse because it provides zero context.

1. Not a single pac with animal traits has been approved since 2024.
2. Many of the denials state that the reason for denial is explicitly because there are animal traits, not the quality, lore, or any other reason.
3. No proof has been revealed that denies these two other points.

Thus it can be concluded that pacs with animal traits are denied, not because of quality, lore, or sense, but because of the very fact that they have animalist traits, nothing more, nothing less.

Animal traits=denial. Until proven otherwise. Thus the rules should say animal traits=denial.
 
Ganch said:
View attachment 24393
View attachment 24394
View attachment 24395


I don't understand your point about them "not allowing" people who are not strictly only human to work within the foundation, at the end of the day we are roleplaying within a world where anything is possible but at the same time we as the foundation are one of the only things making sure the world doesnt end, if they actually roleplay with their animalistic traits and whatnot, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed

also its just a game, dont always take it sooooooooooooooo seriously, videogames are meant to be fun and that

-support to suggestion

sources: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/o5-command-dossier https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/kain-pathos-crow-s-author-page
Click to expand...
Thats the problem though. You do not want this rule added, but it already exists, just not in the rulebook. I dont want it added, i want players to be able to play as these characters. I fully support animalistic characters, but the staff does not. All animalistic pacs are denied, since 2024. Not a single one has been approved this year. So my suggestion is not because im against these pacs, but because the players are being told that animal pacs are allowed when they are not. The rules are not accurate. I would rather have them allow animal pacs, but they dont, so the rules should state that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back