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Clear up confusion since the rules are now outdated right now.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
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...
Kito

PAC Request Thread '[US] ( Requires SSL ) Cédaris "Dare" Rovätoire's Grey Suit PAC3 & Lore Approval Request (#3)'

PAC Requesting Approval

LORE: ISR-081400/1222
  • Added visual, animated, toggleable tail, which requires SSL approval.
  • All lore was based around an event that happened in-game conducted by O5-3 "The Curator".
  • Lore was refined with assistance from SL (Revolutionary).
  • No other part of the PAC3 requires further approval; Just the tail. Thanks!
PAC Requested (Which job): GOC Soldier, Strike-Team
Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:120280980

Photograph of PAC:
https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/jritK4NSjR7j6q7Uz?invite=cr-MSxpdW4sMTQ1MDQ0NjY4LA...

JesterX3

PAC Request Thread '[UK] Ruby (fixed in compliance with rules.)'

LORE:
Character Dossier (REDONE)
Dimensional Explanation and Overview

Brief Summary: Ruby was already a scientist before being recruited into the SCP Foundation. From there she works tirelessly to prove she's just as good as her human peers.

OOC Information: She is 0.75 size, which I feel makes sense as a fennec fox. If it needs to be increased, thats fine, please comment to do so! She is noncombative so it should be fine but either way, no risks. Anything else, questions or otherwise, please comment and I will respond or fix it as soon as I can.

Photos...

https://civilnetworks.net/community/threads/uk-999-tail.32717/ I included this one because they approved a 999 pac that was much worse.

1760200745083.png


1760200814387.png

Now then, here's just some of the evidence. Do you want more? Do i need to explain the 999 one to you?

I know what you're trying to do. It's called an ad hominem, with a mix of strawman, tone policing, and dismissive framing. Resorting to dismissive insults as if you are on some moral high ground instead of addressing my argument or actually giving any argument back. Incredibly rude and disrespectful.
 
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...
I am concerned at the amount of people drawing false conclusions.

Again, this suggestion does not change already existing rules; it only wants an existing rule to be put into text instead of by word so those affected by the rule are aware of it beforehand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimberedZulu115
Henrii said:
I am concerned at the amount of people drawing false conclusions.

Again, this suggestion does not change already existing rules; it only wants an existing rule to be put into text instead of by word so those affected by the rule are aware of it beforehand.
Click to expand...
Thank you for understanding. I'm honestly losing hope and have stopped trying to debate with these people. It's straight up like talking to a wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back