Rule Suggestion Drastically Lower Your Standards

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

Emilia Fοddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
Two Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Community Award Winner 2025
Jul 15, 2023
2,756
718
111
UK

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:​

Increased leniency on FailRP warnings in situations where the situation could very feasibly be resolved as an IC issue.

EDIT:
Harold put it pretty well here:
Harold Hawks said:
continuously disruptive behavior should be handled by staff while one-time incidents should be handled in-character if possible.
Click to expand...

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:​

No.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

  • + Less ruleplay

  • + More roleplay

  • + Makes more general sense that a scenario would play out ICly rather than "God telling them off"

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

  • - Difficulty of enforcement

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:​

In May, I received two FailRP warnings: On the 20th for hopping into D-Block as a Chef to play chess with the D-Class, and on the 25th for for putting a fake 096 pic on the lecture hall projector. These went on to "reflect on my behaviour & attitude" during subsequent role applications, despite the fact that both of them were relatively minor situations that were reasonably resolvable by ISD. I never tried to appeal these warnings because I felt they applied fairly, but the upshot of that is that you have this grey area where you're basically getting small parking tickets on technicalities where they could have reasonably just been an email, which then contribute to stopping your server progression. This is not conducive to server health or new players learning the server and how things work.

If a new player starts playing the server, gets warned over RP they were trying to create and then that stops them from getting a future role, that doesn't tell them "this is a serious server and you need to behave or you'll be punished accordingly," it says "this is a walled garden and if you sneeze wrong, we will come down upon you like a ton of bricks and revoke your breathing privileges for the foreseeable future." This is an extremely unfair way to approach server moderation.

Granted, I understand that these things are generally dealt with on a case-by-case basis - What I'm asking for here is that greater consideration of how RP could proceed be taken into account when it comes to enforcement. Does it make sense that someone would put an 096 picture on the projector and cause hysteria in comms? No. Is it something that realistically deserves a whole warning? Also no. Why have a whole department and gameplay loop around dealing with people misbehaving and causing problems on the site, if Staff decide a large swathe of those situations are OOC matters to be punished with a warning and that then potentially holding them back from server progression in the near future? If there's reasonable RP that could take place, let it take place.

This is not a SeriousRP server. IMO, the standard should be lowered even further with the target being UnseriousRP. Maybe even Semi-SillyRP. Just relax a little 😭
 
Last edited:
Upvote -2 Downvote
+- Half Support I understand what you mean, its really really clear when someone is trying to meet the quota but on the other hand they can also be understanding

To put one of my last experiences, a while ago while playing Thauma a CI raid happened and as A1 went to respond i used my blessing on one of them, with the bad luck he got ignited (at that time i did not know blessings could hurt people)... obviously i got killed and that player was also a staff member, he asked me in staff room why did i do that which i honestly answered i did not know blessings could hurt people, i apologized and we went on our ways without any warning or anything

As i said, it is clear when a staff member is trying to meet their quota, which is not fun, as staff member you could probably just stalk any SCP and warn them for FailRP the moment they emote (those SCP that can emote but "shouldn't") and rack up sit quotas or whatever quota staff has to fill
 
  • Like
Reactions: Average member podidski and Emilia Fοddg
You know, i agree with some points here.
Emilia Fοddg said:
If a new player starts playing the server, gets warned over RP they were trying to create and then that stops them from getting a future role, that doesn't tell them "this is a serious server and you need to behave or you'll be punished accordingly," it says "this is a walled garden and if you sneeze wrong, we will come down upon you like a ton of bricks and revoke your breathing privileges for the foreseeable future." This is an extremely unfair way to approach server moderation.
Click to expand...
This is just slow dying of the growth and being alive forward for this server. How long you can say like this to new players until you have none of them? How long until veteran players leave because of this? Like, yes you can find people who will roleplay serious but how many you will find them now?

Emilia Fοddg said:
Granted, I understand that these things are generally dealt with on a case-by-case basis - What I'm asking for here is that greater consideration of how RP could proceed be taken into account when it comes to enforcement. Does it make sense that someone would put an 096 picture on the projector and cause hysteria in comms? No. Is it something that realistically deserves a whole warning? Also no. Why have a whole department and gameplay loop around dealing with people misbehaving and causing problems on the site, if Staff decide a large swathe of those situations are OOC matters to be punished with a warning and that then potentially holding them back from server progression in the near future? If there's reasonable RP that could take place, let it take place.
Click to expand...
And they tell us they don't want ruleplay.

Emilia Fοddg said:
This is not a SeriousRP server. IMO, the standard should be lowered even further with the target being UnseriousRP. Maybe even Semi-SillyRP. Just relax a little 😭
Click to expand...

For USA, yes but for UK? No, it will be Serious RP for them, no matter how much you will tell them, they will still put somehow S-9ish stuff in there and wonder why some UK players start switching to USA.



Now gonna go off-topic here but i will not be surprised if S-9 comes out and it dies in like 3 months, like really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
"Okay, so imagine this right, your in a highly secured, dangerous and top secret base that holds extremely dangerous and potentially world ending level threats where in reality every single person would be in line with policies and guidelines and be completely normal and take their job seriously cause if they didn't there would be potentially huge consequences to the person not taking it seriously... but... That would be boring because why in such a setting would you be serious! As such you get to be silly and do stupid things without consequences! Sounds great am I right!"
-Support
 
  • Cool
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
icl I think it might alternatively help if we went somewhat in the opposite direction. Warnings should be treated as just that: warnings. Unless it's unclear that something was a rule break, warnings shouldn't be verbal - the point of a warning should just be for it to be logged that you've done something and been spoken to about it. That way, if you do it again, other staff actually know to take that into account. I've seen too many situations where someone's been consistently minging for months but it never gets properly dealt with because they just get a million verbal warnings, so when they do the exact same thing again later, it's never escalated or followed up on.

Conversely, because verbal warnings are done so often, actual proper warnings are treated by most as an actual punishment and terrible thing in themselves, because "if it was bad enough they actually warned you instead of just verbal, it must actually be bad" - but given it's so discretionary and inconsistent, that's not actually how that works, so you get people being denied roles they should be accepted for because they did something super minor and very understandable, but everyone looking at applications treats warnings as something terrible and assumes the person must be a minge to even get one.

I feel like it would be better if, instead, actual warnings were logged in most circumstances where currently verbal warnings are handed out, and to compensate for this shift, the progression of standard punishments for things like FailRP should take a bit more before it becomes a ban - e.g. FailRP B should also be a warning. People handling applications should then also be required to not treat warnings as something terrible - if someone has one FailRP warning from a month ago, they shouldn't be getting reject from roles as a result.

With this combination, people freak out less in the long run about warnings (because they're actually just warnings, instead of something that could kill your RP progression for the next 3 months or whatever), and staff are actually able to properly handle minges, because they actually know that they've been warned countless times for FailRP, rather than being let off 100 times because "you don't have any active warnings and this instance wasn't super bad" x1000.

Warnings should just be warnings. As it is, they often fuck over players unfairly, because they're not treated that way by people looking at applications and whatever, because they're applied so inconsistently that people looking at applications know that people who have recent FailRP warns very often should actually have been banned already for like a month, but staff often don't warn so repeat offenders aren't noticed and dealt with - and they don't do that, because they know that actually warning players will end up affecting them in this way.

It would make sense to me if warnings were actually treated this way, and applications weren't allowed to ask for warnings - only for bans. Ideally, also, staff should have a way to attach notes to warnings/bans to provide a more in depth explanation than "FailRP" which could mean anything, along with e.g. clip links. When I was staff, I would always keep records of any punishments I applied, why, why I chose that punishment in particular, and any evidence, because the warnings system currently used (unless it has significantly changed since I left staff) wasn't sufficient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
Zen said:
icl I think it might alternatively help if we went somewhat in the opposite direction. Warnings should be treated as just that: warnings. Unless it's unclear that something was a rule break, warnings shouldn't be verbal - the point of a warning should just be for it to be logged that you've done something and been spoken to about it. That way, if you do it again, other staff actually know to take that into account. I've seen too many situations where someone's been consistently minging for months but it never gets properly dealt with because they just get a million verbal warnings, so when they do the exact same thing again later, it's never escalated or followed up on.

Conversely, because verbal warnings are done so often, actual proper warnings are treated by most as an actual punishment and terrible thing in themselves, because "if it was bad enough they actually warned you instead of just verbal, it must actually be bad" - but given it's so discretionary and inconsistent, that's not actually how that works, so you get people being denied roles they should be accepted for because they did something super minor and very understandable, but everyone looking at applications treats warnings as something terrible and assumes the person must be a minge to even get one.

I feel like it would be better if, instead, actual warnings were logged in most circumstances where currently verbal warnings are handed out, and to compensate for this shift, the progression of standard punishments for things like FailRP should take a bit more before it becomes a ban - e.g. FailRP B should also be a warning. People handling applications should then also be required to not treat warnings as something terrible - if someone has one FailRP warning from a month ago, they shouldn't be getting reject from roles as a result.

With this combination, people freak out less in the long run about warnings (because they're actually just warnings, instead of something that could kill your RP progression for the next 3 months or whatever), and staff are actually able to properly handle minges, because they actually know that they've been warned countless times for FailRP, rather than being let off 100 times because "you don't have any active warnings and this instance wasn't super bad" x1000.

Warnings should just be warnings. As it is, they often fuck over players unfairly, because they're not treated that way by people looking at applications and whatever, because they're applied so inconsistently that people looking at applications know that people who have recent FailRP warns very often should actually have been banned already for like a month, but staff often don't warn so repeat offenders aren't noticed and dealt with - and they don't do that, because they know that actually warning players will end up affecting them in this way.

It would make sense to me if warnings were actually treated this way, and applications weren't allowed to ask for warnings - only for bans. Ideally, also, staff should have a way to attach notes to warnings/bans to provide a more in depth explanation than "FailRP" which could mean anything, along with e.g. clip links. When I was staff, I would always keep records of any punishments I applied, why, why I chose that punishment in particular, and any evidence, because the warnings system currently used (unless it has significantly changed since I left staff) wasn't sufficient.
Click to expand...
What if warnings could be broken down, something like minor v major warnings? Everything goes on the record, but in applications major warnings are all you care about.
 
Emilia Fοddg said:
What if warnings could be broken down, something like minor v major warnings? Everything goes on the record, but in applications major warnings are all you care about.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be a terrible idea. I think it might just make things more complicated than necessary, though. I'd prefer if warnings were just warnings, and notes could be attached, so e.g. if Staff A warns Player for FailRP for jumping into D-block for no reason, Staff B can look back at the notes for that warn and know that "hey, you literally got warned for doing this exact thing last week - you're not getting another warning, you're going straight to a ban for this one", rather than "hm, I can see you got warned for FailRP, but I have no idea what you did, so I can't judge this at all - it could be completely unrelated to what you're doing now".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
'Clank' said:
What?
Click to expand...
Clank what is this pfp choice?
There are levels to warnings, Verbal and Actual Warnings. A Verbal is the leniency. Staff have the discretion to give the warning within reason of your actions. If they decide that it deserves leniency then of course they will grant it. But, for people that have been around for a while and that are expected to know the rules, they will be less likely to be lenient. Not everyone can be granted leniency.

At the end of the day, FearRP as written in the rules is: 1.04 Do not FailRP - FailRP stands for "Fail Roleplay". It's when someone acts in a unrealistic way that their character would not do. Decisions must be realistic and players must stay in character.
You can't encourage Roleplay for something you cannot feasibly and realistically do in Roleplay. And expecting people to go along with said FailRP is just encouraging more FailRP.

Standards should not be lowered so people can start breaking rules.
 
  • Cool
Reactions: Emilia Fοddg
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back