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Clear up confusion since the rules are now outdated right now.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
TimberedZulu115 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are also unwritten rules in server rules (which are "Staff Rulings").
 
TimberedZulu115 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a couple people have mentioned whether they actually fit the theme of the server or not and the quality of the lore alongside it is important. Quite a lot of animalistic models i have seen either have poor lore alongside them, or feature a style that looks cartoonish and does not fit with the theme of the server. Even GMs are given this advise in terms of events, in that if you are using a pac, make sure it fits in with the visual aethetics of the server. A lego man pac for example would look ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acey, Kevin Ki and Emilia Foddg
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...
If you read what I said in detail, you would so see that I am by extension, in support of these characters as long as extensive lore writing is patched to it, so that it isn’t just garbage outfit-spam
 
Average member podidski said:
What thread im not reading? Am i doing something wrong? I read all the replys and the whole suggetion. Please state the thread that i did not read.
Click to expand...
lol, so you did see that and didn't reply because you were wrong.

Having said that, this entire thread is about staff rulings and a certain pattern to them. You're just stating the obvious that everyone already knows. Speaking of rules and threads, have you been unbanned yet?

By the way, the sky is blue, just in case you didn't know.
 
Last edited:
Playdoughzombie said:
Darby, Gordon Grudgeon, that one guy who was a Skyrim dragon person (all approved pacs btw
Click to expand...
approved doesnt mean they can pull it off well

+support suicide via pistol was denied because its grossly inappropriate, a quite vast majority of furry stuff online is grossly inappropriate for 13+ and a whole variety of weird and gross shit happens
 
Option 1: Set PAC3 to default disabled for any newer players, ones that are generally interested in PAC3 will enable it, those that aren't will turn it off

Option 2: Lock PAC3 behind the paywall and always have it disabled until you buy it, if people are using it to just look cool, it defeats the purpose of the function if the rules already outline the intention.
 
Cade Valentine said:
+Support

The SCP universe at large has anthropomorphic humanoids, topical to that is the 1471 suggestion that has a lot of traction. Unfortunately, it's clear that more blatant showings of such aren't welcome on the community, because it's either a concern that people can't be mature enough about it to do anything more than point and laugh while saying "ew furry" or treat it like slop. I'd genuinely rather SL just be mature and admit that's the truth and outlaw more showish PAC requests like this instead of the PAC guidelines acting like they have a chance when they clearly don't.

It frustrates me to no end, because I know a few PAC requests had significant effort put in to be basically told "it doesn't fit in with the universe". It's the Foundation, we're all playing with our stinky little dolls that we think are cool. And, respectfully, if I may point out:
View attachment 24379
THIS got accepted. Lore realism my ass, the issue is that the community isn't trusted to play nice with anything that could be even remotely "sensitive". Please just admit that and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Common Cade Valentine W
 
Massive -Support

At the end of the day, we're literally playing with virtual dolls and while I believe there are communication issues and biases within staff against the concept and execution of furry/anthro characters. I strongly believe the option to be a furry/anthro chacter should still be there as there have been good executions in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acey and TimberedZulu115
Anthro animal does not always mean its a furry btw. It is literally just an animal of human intelligence or higher, not a person in a fur suit. (Just thought id add this)

Let people have freedom of roleplay in a universe where "unrealistic" is NOT something that should limit ANYONE. The whole fucking narrative is unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Acey and FinnTheBee
Pyrite said:
Anthro animal does not mean its a furry btw. It is literally just an animal of human intelligence or higher, not a person in a fur suit. (Just thought id add this)

Let people have freedom of roleplay in a universe where "unrealistic" is NOT something that should limit ANYONE. The whole fucking narrative is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
wheres the auraful black text
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Acey
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back