Animal Rules!

[Nylu]

- Character Creation: Add some classic mannerisms each animal possesses towards other animals and people (bears = aggressive, fox = shy, etc.). Age limits and role amounts can also be added here too.

Limits roleplay for certain situations. Besides, a lot of players already roleplay their animals correctly. It's not the animals, but the people harassing them ICly due to THEM not following rules. Many people walk up on 300lb bears and ignore the fact that THEY need to fearrp. We cannot blame the whitelisted people when it's not their fault.

- Perms: How to gain minors and majors as an animal, and how to realistically act on those majors. Word of mouth states 3 bear growls = majors which I've also heard was not a thing (anymore?). Also heard if people enter the bear cave it just auto-majors even though I haven't seen it written down anywhere.

This would cause p2w which isnt allowed

Overall, I think it's not rules that affect animals that need to be enforced, but the complete opposite. Rules that affect players however those already exist. It's more so a matter of people ignoring said rules (which can be reported).

-1

 

[FadedMoonlight]

[+1]
What I'd like to see most is people ACTUALLY fearing bears and such, I've seen so many people with main character syndrome because they know oocly about the rolling for animals.

 

[samkipX]

Limits roleplay for certain situations. Besides, a lot of players already roleplay their animals correctly. It's not the animals, but the people harassing them ICly due to THEM not following rules. Many people walk up on 300lb bears and ignore the fact that THEY need to fearrp. We cannot blame the whitelisted people when it's not their fault.

This would cause p2w which isnt allowed

Overall, I think it's not rules that affect animals that need to be enforced, but the complete opposite. Rules that affect players however those already exist. It's more so a matter of people ignoring said rules (which can be reported).

-1

thats not the point tho. I(a person who gets warned by staff ALOT) have heard sooooo many unwriten animal rules from staff, where most of the time you get a insta warn for them.

 

[Nylu]

thats not the point tho. I(a person who gets warned by staff ALOT) have heard sooooo many unwriten animal rules from staff, where most of the time you get a insta warn for them.

If you're referring to getting warned for failrp, it's probably because you weren't rping correctly. I can guarantee you they wouldn't just 'warn' you over a rule you were not aware of because then it's not fair in your favor. If you were warned, it's for a rule that was written unless you need to write a staff report on a staff member making up rules

 

[NokiaNok]

+1

 

[RexLobo]

+1 Give the animalRPers a guideline for their characters

 

[Wrath ⛥]

+1
expecting people to follow UNWRITTEN rules and then threatening to take something away that was PAID FOR if they are broken is a little fucked, not gonna lie. (especially because people are guaranteed to break rules if their existence is there, no matter how obvious they may be)

also expecting a community infamous for lying to people ABOUT the rules who don’t read them in full to fully pass a set of rules only given through tickets and slowly discovered like an easter egg to understand the guidelines to how to behave is a massive yikes dawg. expecting a community to pass rules through word-of-mouth is never going to end well.
imagine unknowingly going into the bear cave and then your character gets majored for a rule that is not written down or clarified anywhere. it’s unfair, and honestly stupid.

give us guidelines pls ty srp gods

 

[rinis]

+1
gotta be real. when I was staff I hated dealing with whitelists bc more times than not it was rulebreaking. (ie: birds saying stuff they shouldn't, cats talking, dogs with video cameras, people interacting with bears when they're supposed to be fearRPed, etc) but the one thing I did notice was most things were supposed to be common sense like acting how a normal animal acts but. . . some players don't get that, I guess?

A rule section would clear that up easily or at least put everyone on the same page. Here's a screenshot of a bee talking bc it was really funny.

 

[rieums]

+1

 

[justsimba]

My honest opinion as EMS, it goes both ways. I +1 to this however it also needs to be more clearly stated that people need to actual fearRP the bears and not just try to bait for the bears to hurt their character. I have seen staff countless of times have to get involved due to failure to fearRP and such, and honestly my honest opinion is to just remove the bear whitelist.

 

[samkipX]

If you're referring to getting warned for failrp, it's probably because you weren't rping correctly. I can guarantee you they wouldn't just 'warn' you over a rule you were not aware of because then it's not fair in your favor. If you were warned, it's for a rule that was written unless you need to write a staff report on a staff member making up rules

no like- i mean warned as in "im gonna be so extremely nice and good staff member and not OFFICIALLY warn you for this rule that cant be found anywhere"

 

[samkipX]

If you're referring to getting warned for failrp, it's probably because you weren't rping correctly. I can guarantee you they wouldn't just 'warn' you over a rule you were not aware of because then it's not fair in your favor. If you were warned, it's for a rule that was written unless you need to write a staff report on a staff member making up rules

my question is: why the heck would you be against a list of animal rules?

 

[Customable]

Most animal warnings and warnings related to animals fall under rule 1.9, 3.2 or 5.6, but I still think this should be clarified in some way.

what I don’t agree with it animals gaining any special perks regarding perms over people, especially bears, right now bears do not gain any perms by doing anything specific like growling or entering their cave, it is purely a fearRP Situation where the player should not be approaching them regardless, and I believe it should stay that way, attacks only occurring if the player consents OOCly, it does not make sense for players to be running into forests looking for animals 500x their own weight where katanas would be mere toothpicks to them before they are mauled to death, hence why we warn for failure to fearRP.

+1

 

[Nylu]

no like- i mean warned as in "im gonna be so extremely nice and good staff member and not OFFICIALLY warn you for this rule that cant be found anywhere"

The point still stands. I’m going to guarantee you that if a staff member verbally warned you, it’s for a rule that’s already present on the forums

 

[Nylu]

my question is: why the heck would you be against a list of animal rules?

Because, the rules that would be added would limit and punish the players with whitelists as if it’s their fault that other players aren’t following rules. If it’s clarification (as Customable said) that you want, then by all means, I don’t mind. But, if it’s addition of new rules that will limit how a whitelisted player can roleplay when it’s not their fault, I’m against it.

For example, many people say bears roleplay incorrectly with humans when in reality, it’s the opposite. For some odd reason, people harass the bears icly and neglect the fact that they need to fearrp them and instead try “taming” them. Then, when bears can’t do much because they don’t have perms/a way to get the character to knock it off, people get mad at them and say “Hey man!! A bear wouldn’t realistically allow someone to harass them!” as if the whitelisted player can do anything. It’s impossible to just allow bears to automatically have majors and whatnot because it’s p2w

 

[Oliverium]

My honest opinion as EMS, it goes both ways. I +1 to this however it also needs to be more clearly stated that people need to actual fearRP the bears and not just try to bait for the bears to hurt their character. I have seen staff countless of times have to get involved due to failure to fearRP and such, and honestly my honest opinion is to just remove the bear whitelist.

It's the players, not the bears (most of the time). Removing the bear whitelist will create problems because players bought the whitelist and there's certain refund policies and whatnot. The problem is failRPers so we must address the problem itself. Players failRP so with animal whitelist rules, staff will be able to give proper warnings to both bears and humans. In addition to that, it's a known rule that if you don't play as your animal correctly, your whitelist will be removed. Therefore it's up to the individual for whether or not the bear whitelist should be removed from their account only, it's not fair to remove it from everyone (mainly those who RP correctly).

 

[Oliverium]

Most animal warnings and warnings related to animals fall under rule 1.9, 3.2 or 5.6, but I still think this should be clarified in some way.

what I don’t agree with it animals gaining any special perks regarding perms over people, especially bears, right now bears do not gain any perms by doing anything specific like growling or entering their cave, it is purely a fearRP Situation where the player should not be approaching them regardless, and I believe it should stay that way, attacks only occurring if the player consents OOCly, it does not make sense for players to be running into forests looking for animals 500x their own weight where katanas would be mere toothpicks to them before they are mauled to death, hence why we warn for failure to fearRP.

+1

I see what you mean. Bears (and other animals) shouldn't get advantages or anything. I just want clear rules in their own separate category in a place where everyone can access. However, if a human approaches a mama bear and her cubs and the mama uses body language and growls to clearly show she's mad and feels threatened, it's not fair for the bear to just "ignore it" (meaning not gain perms) because the player fails to back off. Similar to non-animal trespassers getting perms on themselves by not leaving someone's property with 3 warnings, I think it'll be fair to make rules regarding trespassing into the cave (at the very least). If screenshots can prove what's going on, I don't see why it can't be used as proof for perms.
Animals are very "in the moment" compared to humans who can hold grudges. What if animal perms last a day (24 OOC hours) instead of a week? Animals are still able to use perms but it'll have to be used in the moment (lets say, if a person won't leave an animal alone and the animal reacts). Just an idea.

 

[Oliverium]

Because, the rules that would be added would limit and punish the players with whitelists as if it’s their fault that other players aren’t following rules. If it’s clarification (as Customable said) that you want, then by all means, I don’t mind. But, if it’s addition of new rules that will limit how a whitelisted player can roleplay when it’s not their fault, I’m against it.

For example, many people say bears roleplay incorrectly with humans when in reality, it’s the opposite. For some odd reason, people harass the bears icly and neglect the fact that they need to fearrp them and instead try “taming” them. Then, when bears can’t do much because they don’t have perms/a way to get the character to knock it off, people get mad at them and say “Hey man!! A bear wouldn’t realistically allow someone to harass them!” as if the whitelisted player can do anything. It’s impossible to just allow bears to automatically have majors and whatnot because it’s p2w

For real, the limited perms and rules make whitelists feel risky. Realism vs SRP rules clash and it's hard to do anything really. At least with rules both players and whitelisted players can find common ground.

 

[V_Is_Fruity101]

Because, the rules that would be added would limit and punish the players with whitelists as if it’s their fault that other players aren’t following rules. If it’s clarification (as Customable said) that you want, then by all means, I don’t mind. But, if it’s addition of new rules that will limit how a whitelisted player can roleplay when it’s not their fault, I’m against it.

For example, many people say bears roleplay incorrectly with humans when in reality, it’s the opposite. For some odd reason, people harass the bears icly and neglect the fact that they need to fearrp them and instead try “taming” them. Then, when bears can’t do much because they don’t have perms/a way to get the character to knock it off, people get mad at them and say “Hey man!! A bear wouldn’t realistically allow someone to harass them!” as if the whitelisted player can do anything. It’s impossible to just allow bears to automatically have majors and whatnot because it’s p2w

I'd almost agree with the last bit, harassment against the bears must give them some form of perms, most likely minors, to at least attack the harasser and cause a deepened wound.

 

[Nylu]

I'd almost agree with the last bit, harassment against the bears must give them some form of perms, most likely minors, to at least attack the harasser and cause a deepened wound.

Harassment against bears *does* give permissions. Permissions work just like they would for human characters.

If a bear is being verbally harassed, at one point, they get minor permissions (but no, they cannot cause a deepened wound without majors).