CONSENTED KPS FOR ANIMAL WHITELIST USERS (relating to KPD)

[.Arkkwolf]

What's your Minecraft Username?: Arkkwolf
What's the title of your suggestion?: CONSENTED KPS FOR ANIMAL WHITELIST USERS (relating to KPD)

What's your suggestion?:
As the KPS rules have evolved and changed throughout the years, with its current standings being consented KPS, there is still one aspect that has not changed. Animal whitelist users (especially in recent times bears), who have had their animal characters put down by KPD. It is understandable from a realistic standpoint that if a bear, or any other animal, attacked a person, there would be some sort of action taken. However, there is the case that the animals are characters, just like those who RP humans. While the animal whitelist community has had a checkered past, some people put a lot of thought into their animal character. Just as the new KPS rules were put into place for the sake of roleplay, why does this not also apply to animal whitelist users when it comes to the KPD?

Hence my suggestion that the KPD should have to ask for OOC consent when putting down animals. There is no difference between a human character vs an animal character having more value than the other. It is a character, that someone puts thought into, that is taken away without their consent oocly. While the realism factor still stands, I believe that because we've prioritized consented KPS for people over the "realism" of technically being able to kill someone, it should be applied to animals as well.

How will this benefit the server and community?:
This would benefit the community because it would give whitelist users more of an incentive to make realistic, or more detailed characters. If a player knows that there's a risk for that character to be taken away, players are a lot less likely to expand the character to be more interesting. After all why put in the effort, just for it to end through IC means? It would also prevent a lot of OOC in-fighting about whether there is a valid reason to put their animal character down. While this is not a HUGE issue, it is still one that is hardly addressed. Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion. <3

 

[Hirathex]

-1

If you believe your animal character has been put down unfairly, staff can help you with reviewing the situation / possibly have it voided. There are a lot of animals (specifically bears) that are extremely aggressive to human characters. Yes, sometimes it's in the animal's nature, but when you have bears mauling students there's not much else that can be done besides putting the animal down, especially if it's repeated behavior.

 

[6Pancake]

Only Hospital Veterinarians can actually euthanise animals and they have a set list of guidelines when it comes to it. With a recent situation occurring, I myself will definitely be making sure that these guidelines are enforced strictly, but as Hirathex said, contact a member of staff if you believe your animal was put down unfairly and it will be sorted immediately.

 

[Latte]

+1

If you believe your animal character has been put down unfairly, staff can help you with reviewing the situation / possibly have it voided.

Respectfully hirathex, it seems you missed the point of the suggestion. The reason this user made this suggestion was to give animal characters the OOC option to give their characters away. The issue with the KPS rule is that animals should be valued the same as the animal counterpoint on an OOC stand point, yet they aren't and are just being killed. While I TOTALLY understand the issue with the failure to rp, I've dealt with that before, it's not every single player. For this reason, it's also not every single normal player. They just want a fair chance.

 

[5SHU]

Only Hospital Veterinarians can actually euthanise animals and they have a set list of guidelines when it comes to it. With a recent situation occurring, I myself will definitely be making sure that these guidelines are enforced strictly, but as Hirathex said, contact a member of staff if you believe your animal was put down unfairly and it will be sorted immediately.

The fuck? A paramedic tried to euthanize a bear

 

[6Pancake]

The fuck? A paramedic tried to euthanize a bear

This situation has already been sorted

 

[milkyram]

+1
seems like the -1's above missed the point you were trying to make, which is that it's still someone's character. if they're failing to rp the character correctly, contact staff. there's more cases of people taunting & provoking the animals first + failing to fearrp properly than there are animals being completely unhinged & unrealistic. that's not to say the latter doesn't happen, because it does, but the former is a bigger issue.

if it can be done for human characters, it can be done for animal characters too.

 

[5SHU]

This situation has already been sorted

Oh

anyways +1
Ooc consent is needed badly. (Me who plays two animal chars)

 

[KotaLobo]

+1

While I get why people are saying -1 to this, it must be understood that there's no difference between animal and human characters. In my own opinion, they should get the same rights when it comes to killing the character. The bears are wild animals. Wild is something we can't control because they're not tamed. Getting to the point, bears shouldn't be put down just because they've attacked one or two people, especially when the bears are reacting realistically to the situation. It shouldn't come with the consequence or the risk of your character being killed off because of a situation.

People take time out of their day(s) to make the character, the background, the description, and everything for it just to be killed off two days later because they're reacting realistically to a situation involving a wild bear. Even though guidelines can be strict and thorough with players doing the euthanization, the party on the receiving end of the euthanization (the bear(s) being put down) usually doesn't completely know the risks. People who do know the risks are too scared to realistically play out the situation, but unfortunately get warned due to it.

I. who's played a bear character, have experienced this before. I was too worried to properly play out a situation while I was a bear because I didn't want a character I genuinely cared about to be killed / euthanized because I was properly playing out a situation on her.

 

[Hirathex]

Respectfully hirathex, it seems you missed the point of the suggestion.

I don't agree with consent being needed.

 

[Latte]

If anything, I wish the bears were more hostile than they are now. Bears are failing rp in the sense they are friendly with people, on a consistent basis, because their player is too scared to roleplay them realistically.

 

[6Pancake]

If you go around attacking everyone and slicing everyone open, you’re arrested for life with no bail. That’s the equivalent of KPs (and people cannot say “I don’t consent to being arrested”)

If you are attacking people, you are likely to be put down. For example, a dog who is drawing blood from biting people will be put down if it is causing disturbance. The same applies for bears - In the circumstances that they are a genuine danger to humans, they will be put down (in a sense of a large scale situation in which they have mauled numerous people), as it’s the equivalent to the human arrest system. I would, however, like to note that animal euthanasia is incredibly rare these days

 

[THE England]

+1

Animals are characters too. Fair treatment. I know the combat roleplay against animals isn't common, but some animals are MEANT to be hostile--even if they don't actually cause harm--but roleplaying your character differently automatically results in their death. Not every animal has to be friendly, and if they're allowed to be unfriendly or hostile, they shouldn't be punished for it by "confiscation" of their character via death.

 

[THE England]

If you go around attacking everyone and slicing everyone open, you’re arrested for life with no bail. That’s the equivalent of KPs (and people cannot say “I don’t consent to being arrested”)

If you are attacking people, you are likely to be put down. For example, a dog who is drawing blood from biting people will be put down if it is causing disturbance. The same applies for bears - In the circumstances that they are a genuine danger to humans, they will be put down (in a sense of a large scale situation in which they have mauled numerous people), as it’s the equivalent to the human arrest system. I would, however, like to note that animal euthanasia is incredibly rare these days

You almost exclusively get put away for life with no bail whenever you commit murder or attempted murder or whatever, and countless things that would probably need consent to begin with. You don't explicitly give consent for arrest, but it's indirect. Besides, the only reason getting put down isn't common is because everybody is incentivized not to be violent. It results in basically a guarantee of their death. They're animals so they won't know when they're being hunted, and many violent animals like bears are stuck in one place for cops to know exactly where they are. If they weren't guaranteed death--with no trial, unlike arrests--there would be more violent animals, so it being rare isn't very strong evidence. Plus, you don't get put away for life over breaking a bone. An animal would definitely be put down over it.

 

[KotaLobo]

If you go around attacking everyone and slicing everyone open, you’re arrested for life with no bail. That’s the equivalent of KPs (and people cannot say “I don’t consent to being arrested”)

If you are attacking people, you are likely to be put down. For example, a dog who is drawing blood from biting people will be put down if it is causing disturbance. The same applies for bears - In the circumstances that they are a genuine danger to humans, they will be put down (in a sense of a large scale situation in which they have mauled numerous people), as it’s the equivalent to the human arrest system. I would, however, like to note that animal euthanasia is incredibly rare these days

I get what you mean by this. The problem with this is that these are wild animals, not humans. Realistically, bears are aggressive. Comparing euthanasia to being arrested is a large scale between the two. People choose to commit crimes, animals don't. Animals become aggressive when something triggers a strong emotion, making them act out aggressively. For example; people go into the forest to fight a bear.

 

[kustomzero]

Neutral.
Hira and Alex have a point and a few others do have points as well. Therefore my opinion will remain neutral on this matter.

 

[Latte]

If you go around attacking everyone and slicing everyone open, you’re arrested for life with no bail. That’s the equivalent of KPs (and people cannot say “I don’t consent to being arrested”)

If you are attacking people, you are likely to be put down. For example, a dog who is drawing blood from biting people will be put down if it is causing disturbance. The same applies for bears - In the circumstances that they are a genuine danger to humans, they will be put down (in a sense of a large scale situation in which they have mauled numerous people), as it’s the equivalent to the human arrest system. I would, however, like to note that animal euthanasia is incredibly rare these days

Death and arrest do not correlate though, its hard for you to lose a character, acceptable for you to have your jailed, that does not feel as bad as losing potiental years of progress (i.e, my friends bear, SmallFork2). What point is there for you to spend physical money to do what you want to when your choices are then taken away? It should not be so restrictive, or in better terms, more restrictive than animal roleplay already is. Thank God the vet system was added back. There needs to be a happy medium, as players are told off for being too aggressive or too friendly. You cannot blame them (the player of the bear) for trying out a new source of roleplay and then getting punished for something they cannot particularly control. Do you know how many people are aggressive towards animals, provoking these kinds of situations? Yesterday 3 people tried to cook my rabbit on false terms "just cause" thats failrp, and also rather disgusting.

 

[Latte]

Ignorance vs self defense, that sums up those who provoke a wild animal

 

[6Pancake]

You almost exclusively get put away for life with no bail whenever you commit murder or attempted murder or whatever, and countless things that would probably need consent to begin with. You don't explicitly give consent for arrest, but it's indirect. Besides, the only reason getting put down isn't common is because everybody is incentivized not to be violent. It results in basically a guarantee of their death. They're animals so they won't know when they're being hunted, and many violent animals like bears are stuck in one place for cops to know exactly where they are. If they weren't guaranteed death--with no trial, unlike arrests--there would be more violent animals, so it being rare isn't very strong evidence. Plus, you don't get put away for life over breaking a bone. An animal would definitely be put down over it.

An animal wouldn’t be put down for breaking a bone, or at least not a wild animal. As I have already said, there are guidelines in place for euthanasia that may not have explicitly been followed, but will strictly be enforced from this point on.

I am in agreement with the fact wild bears should be able to be violent, and I am in agreement with the first step being that they should be tranquillised and taken back to the bear cave (as typically players do tend to provoke animals for no reason) and this is typically the approach taken in every single bear situation for as long as I can remember since the glocks have been removed. The only euthanised bear I’ve seen within the recent months was a situation that ended up voidedjust like how Hirathex has said any unfair situations can be reported to staff).

If you have any ideas that you would like to argue in terms of the veterinarian system, my DMs are always open, as I will gladly look over the guidelines over the next few days (as I am already planning to inform the police lead of an updated system due to recent situations).

Please note that I am not in disagreement nor agreement with this suggestion, simply trying to explain the reasoning and/or concepts that the Hospital & Police faction have when it comes to dealing with animals, whether they be household or wild, as when it comes to regular players, they must have OOC consent to kill an animal (considering animals cannot be in gangs at all!!)

 

[.Arkkwolf]

Well, this was not the response I expected. I actually can see both points of view on this. Let's please be civil with one another though, both points of view (from an IC standpoint and an OOC standpoint) have their valid arguments. WHILE this is not a major issue as I said in my above explanation, it still does occur, and still does hurt people who put time and effort into their characters. I am glad, as Pancake said, that there is a strict policy put in place ICLY. But the question still stands, what makes a character valuable enough for OOC consent to be needed? There were plenty of disagreements in the beginning when consented KPS was first introduced. But a lot of people were in favor of it. Whatever the outcome of this post, I still believe, animal whitelist characters should get a similar privilege. Thank you all for lending your insight <3