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Clear up confusion since the rules are now outdated right now.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
Pyrite said:
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.
Click to expand...
TRUTH NUKE
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyrite
FinnTheBee said:
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.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree. I made this rule suggestion on the premise of them not approving any animal pacs and stating that they will not approve any anymore. So if they are going in this direction, which they already have, then they should change the rules to reflect that.

They either need to change the rules, or allow pacs with animal traits.
 
This doesn't need to be a suggestion, it's staff discrection and so far it's been monitored pretty well.
Truthfully speaking, they never look good, they don't fit in and and honestly majority of players dislike them and will actively point it out, make fun of them and make an issue out of it leading to less meaningful interactions with that person wearing the pac3. You can write as much lore as you want for these types of PAC3s but if they look shit, they shouldn't be in the server which they won't be.

Overall, they look shit. If I had my rank I'd keep denying them, but a rule doesn't need to be made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acey and Sceptre
++ support
How does it seem no one gets this is a clarification on already (what seems to be) existing guidelines?
This is no more than bringing implied rules to paper, and it is entirely reasonable.
If you were to consider buying a PAC3 subscription, would you not want to know everything you are and are not allowed to do beforehand?
You do not want players purchasing a subscription under a false pretense that can damage the reputation of the server and hurt its health.

For those in favor of animalistic PACs, you SHOULD want this rule in writing so more people are aware, and thus those who are unaware but oppose it can voice their opinion too.

Unwritten OOC rules should always be put into writing so no one breaks a rule that does not exist to them, or those who do not like that idea can be aware and oppose it. SL has clearly demonstrated their intent regarding animalistic PACs and it should be posted somewhere so the correct people keep their money and SL + player time is not further wasted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TimberedZulu115
Pyrite said:
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.
Click to expand...
being a human with animal characeristics is anomlous lock them motehrufkcekrs up with 953 and 1471
 
Henrii said:
++ support
How does it seem no one gets this is a clarification on already (what seems to be) existing guidelines?
This is no more than bringing implied rules to paper, and it is entirely reasonable.
If you were to consider buying a PAC3 subscription, would you not want to know everything you are and are not allowed to do beforehand?
You do not want players purchasing a subscription under a false pretense that can damage the reputation of the server and hurt its health.

For those in favor of animalistic PACs, you SHOULD want this rule in writing so more people are aware, and thus those who are unaware but oppose it can voice their opinion too.

Unwritten OOC rules should always be put into writing so no one breaks a rule that does not exist to them, or those who do not like that idea can be aware and oppose it. SL has clearly demonstrated their intent regarding animalistic PACs and it should be posted somewhere so the correct people keep their money and SL + player time is not further wasted.
Click to expand...
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT. Even after screenshot, links, and edits, people were still misunderstanding and trying to gaslight me that nothing is wrong, or supporting the suggestion for all the wrong reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henrii
Naffen said:
This doesn't need to be a suggestion, it's staff discrection and so far it's been monitored pretty well.
Truthfully speaking, they never look good, they don't fit in and and honestly majority of players dislike them and will actively point it out, make fun of them and make an issue out of it leading to less meaningful interactions with that person wearing the pac3. You can write as much lore as you want for these types of PAC3s but if they look shit, they shouldn't be in the server which they won't be.

Overall, they look shit. If I had my rank I'd keep denying them, but a rule doesn't need to be made.
Click to expand...
You make no sense. You said it shouldn't be made a rule, then explained exactly why it should be put into the rules.

Also, we were talking about some of your denials in particular. The screenshot of the denial on my suggestion post is one of yours. Can you please shed some light on what you said and why you stated that?

Your denial says that animalistic pacs are no longer allowed and wont be for the foreseeable future. By all means, that suggests that an unspoken rule existed at the time of your denial, and by all the evidence presented, that rule still exists today.

It's only fair to the players that that rule be put on the rulebook, because it clearly exists, your denial states exactly that. It's not fair for players' pacs to be denied for breaking a rule that "doesn't exist".
 
Glazzing said:
-support no anthro pacs... so no more human pacs as well?
Click to expand...
You know what I mean.

I said anthro because anthropomorphosized animals is too complicated of a sentence to type over and over again and i want to save people's time, like you, by not making them have to look up words just to read my suggestion. Try saying that word five times fast.
 
Dusk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would pick option 2 because more money for ventz and less lag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinnTheBee
-SUPPORT
( Actual coal.. brimstone even )

I get the point of this suggestion but it's too wide of a blanket to cast. You say 'anthro traits' - and I don't want to be a Redditor about it but it refers to humanoid characteristics. Where do you draw the line? Is the cyborg OK or do we need to scrap that too? Etc.

Also it's a non-issue. You said it yourself and it was confirmed by those in charge: Poorly-made PAC3s will be discarded. It's to do with quality and the server's 'art style', not just certain characteristics. It was also clearly pointed out that the issue you're having is with something that occured 1 year ago.

I don't mean to be a prick but this just feels like it was made out of saltiness rather than any honest will to change the server for the better.
 
Acey said:
-SUPPORT
( Actual coal.. brimstone even )

I get the point of this suggestion but it's too wide of a blanket to cast. You say 'anthro traits' - and I don't want to be a Redditor about it but it refers to humanoid characteristics. Where do you draw the line? Is the cyborg OK or do we need to scrap that too? Etc.

Also it's a non-issue. You said it yourself and it was confirmed by those in charge: Poorly-made PAC3s will be discarded. It's to do with quality and the server's 'art style', not just certain characteristics. It was also clearly pointed out that the issue you're having is with something that occured 1 year ago.

I don't mean to be a prick but this just feels like it was made out of saltiness rather than any honest will to change the server for the better.
Click to expand...
Now, the main issue here, is the fact that staff is not telling the truth. It doesn't take much, all you have to do is go into the pac forums and look for yourself.

I honestly dont know what else to tell you. There is so much evidence right here. I have links, screenshots, and more, yet you still say the same thing. I honestly do not see how you can read this whole thread, look at the amount of evidence, and say that im just salty, which is quite rude after the effort i put into this suggestion. You say your not trying to be a prick, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Words mean nothing. I'm the only one who has presented clear evidence. None of the people opposing the suggestion have presented any evidence for their points.

The fact that your judging the vocabulary when you know exactly what it means, means that you have nothing important to offer to this thread. It's crazy how you say that you're not trying to act like a redditor, and then proceed to act like a redditor, as if saying that somehow excuses you.

And also, when did i ever state that it's a non issue? Are you even reading the same thread?

It's like talking to a wall.
 
Last edited:
TimberedZulu115 said:
Now, the main issue here, is the fact that staff is not telling the truth. It doesn't take much, all you have to do is go into the pac forums and look for yourself.

[...]
Click to expand...

I'm not the one to trust staff and I often mock them openly but I'm doubtful they're malicious about this. They've no reason to be. I've taken a look at the PACs they've accepted and denied and most of the time they're more than right to. Frankly I think they accept too many of those that don't fit the aesthetic but that's a more subjective take.

You repeat the same thing like a broken record and act like it's fact. It's kind of sad really but I can't do much ( or anything ) to help you.

You can keep stomping your feet and chimping out all you want but it doesn't really help your argument.
 
Snake said:
A lego man pac for example would look ridiculous.
Click to expand...
regarding the last part a lego man would make sense and can be good if gamemasters approved a scp-387 event where there are many lego people I feel it would be making sense to have a lego man in pac if needed for a gamemaster even of SCP-387
 
Acey said:
I'm not the one to trust staff and I often mock them openly but I'm doubtful they're malicious about this. They've no reason to be. I've taken a look at the PACs they've accepted and denied and most of the time they're more than right to. Frankly I think they accept too many of those that don't fit the aesthetic but that's a more subjective take.

You repeat the same thing like a broken record and act like it's fact. It's kind of sad really but I can't do much ( or anything ) to help you.

You can keep stomping your feet and chimping out all you want but it doesn't really help your argument.
Click to expand...
I never said they were malicious.

Now, im always one for discussion, but I dont like talking to people who throw insults, but I'll bite.

You call me a broken record, but when I look at this thread, all I see is "Rule is not needed, its about quality, not animalistic pacs." over and over again, like what you said. I have reached the end of my argument, I have nothing else to say because everything that needed to be said has already been said. Now, then, give me a moment, because clearly you are not willing to read or invest any time doing your own research so I'll do it for you.

Call me a broken record all you want, I have the evidence. It is a fact, a complete fact, until proven otherwise. Have you proven otherwise? No. Have you provided any evidence to back your claim? No. Do you resort to insults unprovoked? Yes.

Now, go ahead and show me where i am "stomping my feet and chimping out." I'll wait. And while I wait, and since i have time right now, ill relink you all of the evidence, which you can look for yourself up in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back