Game Master
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
I am suggesting that Network Leadership discuss, and remove this new clarification.
I am specifically talking about the part that being warned, kicked, & banned does not allow for somebody to be removed or receive strikes in their whitelisted positions, I must clarify I AM NOT saying it is in the right of Sr. CL4 & Delta Commanders to take the enforcement of the server rules into their own hands, rather I am saying that there should be consequences allowed for instances of confirmed and already enforced staff punishments in severe enough circumstance, and strikes/discipline do not come down to as simply 'being in character'
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, this ruling was just made 37 seconds ago as of me opening this post
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Quality control; Players who are going around and disregarding server rules do not deserve to be holding their given positions if they think they should be able to get on other jobs or GOIs, break rules, and not have any repercussions so long as they have not banned long enough to still meet activity requirements.
- This ruling is what I believe to be 2 steps backward from a very good implementation that O5-1 has made recently, which essentially states that IC rule breaks will not be treated as harshly and likely only result in IC, repercussions in other forms than strikes or disciplinary so long as they are done with good intentions, with this new announcement, stating that strikes are fully IC, this implementation would not be as effective in creating RP.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- The system may result in unneeded escalation of punishments for something simple, and while however, this may be the case, these things can be resolved simply through the already present appeal process.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Main Point 1; RP
- This statement from Network Leadership is ultimately harmful to both RP and the quality of people holding positions.
- In the screenshot I posted above, it is stated by O5-1 that it is going to be an expectation for CL4, especially Sr. CL4 to create more roleplay, and to lift them up to these expectations, they plan to handle In-Character issues directly through RP. You will be putting your character at stake rather than putting your position at stake when attempting to create quality RP. As I said before, this is a step forward and in the direction of better quality roleplay, and the NL ruling is 2 steps back. This ruling is going to discourage players from taking that opportunity as they may be afraid that since NL said strikes are in character that means if they do something for the sake of creating RP, it may result in them losing the positions that they have worked hard to obtain, and in the past, this has been a consistent issue, for both players being scared to engage in RP storylines as they may lose their position, and players losing their positions for engaging in these scenarios.
Main Point 2; Expectations, & Lack of Incentive.
- If somebody is going to be a Sr. CL4 or any whitelisted position they should also be expected to uphold the server rules, and this makes rules less punishing. The fact that you could lose your IC position by intentionally breaking server rules was enough for many people to not want to do these stupid things. The idea of getting to RDM, FailRP, etc, and at most risk a 1-3 day free LOA (A ban) and then returning with no repercussion other than future application hindrance does not sound nearly as bad as; breaking the same rules, receiving a ban, losing your whitelists unless appealed, and then having a mark on your record saying you got banned while holding a high ranking position, and should be watched with caution.
- As it stands now, Most ban durations for some severe offenses only span 1-2 Weeks, there are many positions on the server in which these ban durations are not enough to constitute an immediate and unappealable removal, as one week without logging on is not enough to be removed without warning from many positions. For example, in technicality, you could be responsible for ERP while on Civilian, and still be allowed to return to your position as a DEA Special Agent, and Director of Research, as it was not an In-Character issue. In no circumstance should this be the case. (Disclaimer; this was not an actual thing that happened)
In short, what I am saying is that Network Leadership making it so that rule breaks are a purely OOC punishment thing and can not hold direct repercussion to your position on the server is objectively harmful to both the community and RP, and this should not be the case.
The player base is not trying to enforce server rules on the staff team's behalf by using character punishment, we are only trying to keep a standard among ranks so that the server is fun for newcomers and those around us.
I am suggesting that Network Leadership discuss, and remove this new clarification.
I am specifically talking about the part that being warned, kicked, & banned does not allow for somebody to be removed or receive strikes in their whitelisted positions, I must clarify I AM NOT saying it is in the right of Sr. CL4 & Delta Commanders to take the enforcement of the server rules into their own hands, rather I am saying that there should be consequences allowed for instances of confirmed and already enforced staff punishments in severe enough circumstance, and strikes/discipline do not come down to as simply 'being in character'
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, this ruling was just made 37 seconds ago as of me opening this post
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Quality control; Players who are going around and disregarding server rules do not deserve to be holding their given positions if they think they should be able to get on other jobs or GOIs, break rules, and not have any repercussions so long as they have not banned long enough to still meet activity requirements.
- This ruling is what I believe to be 2 steps backward from a very good implementation that O5-1 has made recently, which essentially states that IC rule breaks will not be treated as harshly and likely only result in IC, repercussions in other forms than strikes or disciplinary so long as they are done with good intentions, with this new announcement, stating that strikes are fully IC, this implementation would not be as effective in creating RP.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- The system may result in unneeded escalation of punishments for something simple, and while however, this may be the case, these things can be resolved simply through the already present appeal process.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Main Point 1; RP
- This statement from Network Leadership is ultimately harmful to both RP and the quality of people holding positions.
- In the screenshot I posted above, it is stated by O5-1 that it is going to be an expectation for CL4, especially Sr. CL4 to create more roleplay, and to lift them up to these expectations, they plan to handle In-Character issues directly through RP. You will be putting your character at stake rather than putting your position at stake when attempting to create quality RP. As I said before, this is a step forward and in the direction of better quality roleplay, and the NL ruling is 2 steps back. This ruling is going to discourage players from taking that opportunity as they may be afraid that since NL said strikes are in character that means if they do something for the sake of creating RP, it may result in them losing the positions that they have worked hard to obtain, and in the past, this has been a consistent issue, for both players being scared to engage in RP storylines as they may lose their position, and players losing their positions for engaging in these scenarios.
Main Point 2; Expectations, & Lack of Incentive.
- If somebody is going to be a Sr. CL4 or any whitelisted position they should also be expected to uphold the server rules, and this makes rules less punishing. The fact that you could lose your IC position by intentionally breaking server rules was enough for many people to not want to do these stupid things. The idea of getting to RDM, FailRP, etc, and at most risk a 1-3 day free LOA (A ban) and then returning with no repercussion other than future application hindrance does not sound nearly as bad as; breaking the same rules, receiving a ban, losing your whitelists unless appealed, and then having a mark on your record saying you got banned while holding a high ranking position, and should be watched with caution.
- As it stands now, Most ban durations for some severe offenses only span 1-2 Weeks, there are many positions on the server in which these ban durations are not enough to constitute an immediate and unappealable removal, as one week without logging on is not enough to be removed without warning from many positions. For example, in technicality, you could be responsible for ERP while on Civilian, and still be allowed to return to your position as a DEA Special Agent, and Director of Research, as it was not an In-Character issue. In no circumstance should this be the case. (Disclaimer; this was not an actual thing that happened)
In short, what I am saying is that Network Leadership making it so that rule breaks are a purely OOC punishment thing and can not hold direct repercussion to your position on the server is objectively harmful to both the community and RP, and this should not be the case.
The player base is not trying to enforce server rules on the staff team's behalf by using character punishment, we are only trying to keep a standard among ranks so that the server is fun for newcomers and those around us.
Community Manager
Group Moderator