Rule Suggestion PAC approval change

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Jun 5, 2022
90
1
26
91
20
Scotland
ungoc.com
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
(Please dont smite me down SL.)
This suggestion would make it so that upon denial of a PAC3 by SL it can be appealed to receive community or server roleplay leadership approval (O5/Ethics/CI/GOC Leadership).

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I highly doubt it.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Often times SL will deny a PAC3 due to seeing it as not fitting within the general setting or a situation, however a lot of the time people who are reviewing the PAC3s may not be familiar with the setting or may not see something from the right perspective. Having the ability to appeal a PAC3 for community approval both actively lets the community engage with the approval/denial process of PAC3s and additionally helps to see what is something that they would be happy to see in RP.

At the end of the day it is primarily the community that engage with PAC3 usage rather than SL, therefor I believe it to only make sense for them to have the ability to have input in acceptance/denial of PAC3s.


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
There is obviously the fear that a PAC3 will be denied for obvious reasons, such as low effort, evident breaks of PAC3 rules, etc. In this situation an appeal to community approval would not be appropriate, however if it was to happen it would simply result in community denial. There is also the chance that this may upset the people who originally denied the PAC3 for whatever reason.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
At the end of the day it is not typically SL interacting with the PAC3s they approve/deny and is in fact the community, so they should get a say in what they do and do not interact with. Also, they are more often than not more well-versed within the lore of situations and may offer unthought of insight.
 
+Support
SL denying a clown pac request for the GOC on the grounds of it looking too "Silly" for the GOC
I implore them to actually understand the true whimsy and silliness present in the GOC which we see established in some of the greatest GOC articles on the wiki
such as this https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/goc-tale-sequence-uhec


"
They sang as an Ultra-Heavy Engagement Chassis, hidden inside a fifteen-foot hologram of Michael Jordan, slam-dunked an artillery shell through the turret of a possessed P.1000 Ratte Landkreuzer.
"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vxnt
Apr 4, 2023
332
128
21
SL are horribly inconsistent in what they deny/approve.

I have seen PACs be approved and denied for the most absurd reasons.
One that comes to mind

"Your lore and PAC are amazing, unfortunately I just find it too far out of the realm of realism for the Ethics Committee to not terminate a D-Class who is so monumentally deformed like this."

This is an In Character reason for a PAC denial, and should be left to the Community to RP around, not made by an SL on Forums.

SL have also denied PACs that make sense in lore and with the current Roleplay, but will deny with little consideration because they are not involved.



Regardless, I expect SL to close this post because they do not wish for the Community to have feedback on something they wish to control.
 
SL are horribly inconsistent in what they deny/approve.

I have seen PACs be approved and denied for the most absurd reasons.
One that comes to mind

"Your lore and PAC are amazing, unfortunately I just find it too far out of the realm of realism for the Ethics Committee to not terminate a D-Class who is so monumentally deformed like this."

This is an In Character reason for a PAC denial, and should be left to the Community to RP around, not made by an SL on Forums.

SL have also denied PACs that make sense in lore and with the current Roleplay, but will deny with little consideration because they are not involved.



Regardless, I expect SL to close this post because they do not wish for the Community to have feedback on something they wish to control.

🗣️🔥
+Support
-As a CO I should be able to decide what crosses the line between what "feels like CI". I have had a CI member who had a fucking brilliant pac, looked just like CI and it was great. It wasn't allowed. Why? Wasn't green enough to look like CI. The pac with a light green with some navy green colouring. He had to make it the same colour as radioactive fluid for them to say it was alright. And this isn't even talking about how CI aren't even green. They're navy green at most. Fucking disappointing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vxnt
May 14, 2023
67
9
41
20
Denmark
+Support
Realistically speaking, SL asking RP Leaders for feedback in regards to whether a PAC3 would fit into RP is not a lot of work, but would address the issues outlined in this suggestion. I am also confident that the majority of RP Leaders would not mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vxnt

RedsnowWinter

Active member
Jul 10, 2024
17
2
21
+Support

I agree with what Rito said. In the lore, the GOC has worn some of the weirdest outfits, so a clown would be quite normal.
 

TootsMcScoots

Well-known Member
Jun 18, 2023
46
10
41
+support
I've had a PAC denied because it was combatively disadvantageous to ME to have it on, like, I know, I made the thing, if I want to get into a combative situation I'll just take it off 😭