Suggestion - Rule 2.1 / Revision of the 2015 Forum Organization Changes - Ban on non-roleplay organizations

Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
What rule do you wish to Edit/Add:

The rule in question is 2.1 - Play Realistically. This rule is in my opinion not only the most important one of all, as it distinguishes a serious RP environment from any other DarkRP and Semi-Serious Roleplay server out there, setting the theme and the level of conduct expected out of every single player during their time spent on the server. Sadly, however, this rule also seems to be the one that is the most neglected, and in my opinion, as is and has been the opinion of many others, the neglect of this rule is the very reason for PERPheads being and slowly becoming a community and server, that is not dedicated to roleplay at all. For the past 7 years of my time spent on PERPheads, I've watched as the community grew, changed, and transformed and ultimately even stagnated in many ways, but for the majority of that time, the only change which could be indisputably observed was the slow and steady decline of not only the quality of roleplay but also of roleplay's presence on the server itself. This has started in late-2015 with the change of rules on how organizations can appear on the forums by @Bolli and has inevitably lead to the near extinction of not only serious organizations today, but of roleplay itself. For those unfamiliar with the 2015 post (2015 Forum Organization Changes), it basically states that all organizations posted onto the forums are to be taken ICly and criminal ones will not be allowed to post about their criminal activities. A good change in theory, but a terrible one in practice.

At the beginning of last year, I created a discussion of the same name(Ban on non-roleplay organizations), attempting to discuss this possibility, and I've been met with interesting results, about half the people partaking in the discussion were against this idea, while to my surprise the other half was supportive of it, despite extreme flak and heavy resistance from the opposition. The main point of that discussion was ultimately the fact that the server thrived and was the closest to its theme, setting, and level of conduct expected by the rules, it has ever been. After the change and the staff team ultimately deciding to not intervene and to not enforce 2.1 at all, has to lead the server into the state it finds itself today, with predominantly unrealistic organizations, which in turn show new players and set a precedent of realism and serious RP as something optional and not sought after, ever only feeding the problem.
Please go over the discussion, as I go into much more detail about the nature of this issue within it.
In my original thread, I made a few examples of organizations that are mainly responsible for the decline of realism, roleplay, and the creation of an environment that not only encourages new and old players alike to turn away from serious RP, but also an environment that enforces this practice by looking down and systematically dominating players and organizations who attempt to focus on such things. However, since the last time I've made that example, the list only grew, so I will elaborate with an updated one now. These are predominantly the organizations that take Roleplay as an option, don't recognize the need for roleplay at all, or simply dismiss it as a waste of time that could, in turn, be spent on more raiding and more power-growing.



Olsen Banden


The list of course goes much further, but we would be here all day if I had to list every single one.


Your version of the rule: My version of the rules is ultimately the same as it is in its current state:

"2.1 Play Realistically

This game mode aims to emulate real life, and as such, players are expected to play realistically at all times; exceptions can be made where appropriate - any such Exceptions are purely determined by an administrator’s discretion."


Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:

With that said, I however wish to urge and call out the staff team for their lack of action and, finally take responsibility for the decline of roleplay within the community. Take charge and begin enforcing and preserving roleplay as it was intended to be done with the server in the first place. It all ultimately lies within the title of the server itself: Perpheads PERP [Workshop DL|Highly Customized|Serious RP|TDMCar

Did you catch that? "Serious RP" . ...It was intended to be a serious roleplay server and it has not been standing true to that name for years now. So with this thread, I formally urge you to either hear out my plea and finally restore the server to what it should be and prohibit the creation and the functioning of organizations that are beyond reasonable doubt unrealistic and anti-roleplay in general, as well as indeed adhere to 2.1 as it stands and enforce it in its full capacity onto players who simply do not attempt to even dish out the slightest piece of roleplay, or to decline this final call for reason and at the very least, stop misleading new players into thinking this is a serious roleplay environment and remove that portion of the text from the server's title.


Thank you for your time reading this.
With kind regards,
Obidan66 / Eddie Grey.
 
Last edited:
Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
@Dank First of all, thank you for taking your time with creating such a well-made reply, much appreciated.

When it comes to the focus of the game, as you said being shifted towards more of a Cops vs Orgs game mode, I fully agree with that assessment, however where we diverge is the fact that enforcing serious organizations and roleplay within itself doesn't fit the meta, because the meta doesn't fit the server. This isn't Cops vs Orgs, This is PERP a Serious Roleplay server, as it is called, and by those definitions, the current state of things is the problem, not the other way around.

When it comes to FearRP, you are correct that it is still present, but as you yourself said, not in its original definition. That's also a mistake, it isn't up to players or staff alike to interpret the rule in their own way and twist it into a form that best suits their needs.

When it comes to my point about the Staff's failure to act upon 2.1 and ulterior motives connected to that, yes... It is a rather large allegation, but it also is a fact that needs only for a player to look at the server and see if 2.1 is ever enforced in any way shape, or form. It isn't. One could then go further and speculate that there are financial motives from the ownership of the server behind it, due to the fact that it is financially much better to have a larger more disorganized playerbase that cares nothing about roleplay, but cares only about the main money-making mechanics of the server, which VIP donations give a buff to in all aspects and therefore there is a much larger income to the server due to this reality. Which is understandable, but immoral and definitely hypocritical to some extent.

Finally, to address your last paragraph, the staff are here to enforce all rules to the same extent and as long as 2.1 is among them, the staff are not doing their job correctly. Having the ability to create organizations that are less serious isn't the issue. The issue here is that players have the ability and now that ability is the norm, to create organizations that have no roleplay involved within them or their theme in inherently anti-roleplay. That is the issue. That, in turn, feeds the problem, the staff showing everyone that this is okay due to their inaction, then translates to old and new players alike adopting this playstyle, which in turn teaches brand new players that roleplay has no place within this server.

Thank you,
Obidan66.
 
Last edited:
Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
@Butterman561 Hello and thank you for your reply.

The main point of this thread is yes, partly pointing out the most obvious side-effect of 2.1 being ignored by the players and the staff alike, that being that organizations are FailRP, Non-RP, or generally anti-RP in nature.
But the core of the issue stems from 2.1 which, if it began to be enforced as it should be like any other rule and players in violation of it would be held accountable and punished accordingly. People would have no other choice than to adapt or leave. Those who'd leave would most likely be of little value to the roleplay and the server in general, as that mostly consists of power-growers and raiders who raid every single property on the map just because they can. In a lot of cases, these two archetypes are actually intertwined.

Thank you,
Obidan66.
 
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
6,913
Points
805
Location
United Kingdom, Devon
They want to be a serious rp server but have orgs that you've listed run around, I don't mind some meme orgs that are more light hearted but still have a story behind it.
 
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
961
Points
760
Location
United Kingdom
You made pretty much the exact same discussion almost a year ago, and it received an almost entirely negative response. The player base has barely changed and the RP attitude hasn't either, so why do you think making the same suggestion over again will make any difference?

The name and structure of an organisation makes very little to no difference to roleplay, any random player isn't going to roleplay more because they're told that their org needs to be called "The Something Mafia" and has to have a realistic ranking structure, backstory and org post.

I don't understand why you continue to target this one specific thing when in all seriousness it makes little to no difference to actual roleplay on the server, I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could come up with better ideas for how you could increase roleplay on the server.
 
Last edited:
Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
@Samsterminator Hi, thanks for your reply.

There are a few key issues I have with what you said, let's break it down.

First, the last thread I made concerning this was a discussion, this is an official suggestion. You should have a discussion already made on a topic before a suggestion about it is made, hence why they both exist. By having to explain this, it's apparent to me that you either haven't read this post in its entirety or really briefly skimmed through it. Also, the discussion itself received a mixed response as if you break down the ratings on the post itself and on the responses, you'll find that it's actually almost exactly 50/50.

Second, the topic goes much further beyond just org names and structure within organizations, its touches onto core subjects such as themes, backstories, and generally players RPing their characters and making organizations that suit them in whichever way that is, while keeping it realistic.
Just as in the original discussion as I recall, you either failed to understand this core message or simply didn't want to acknowledge it, that I don't know, but ultimately you oversimplified it and singled out only a certain part of it so that it looks and sounds less credible, which I admit, the way you put it... it does. Fortunately, that isn't at all what I said or proposed.

I would respectfully ask you to read the entire post and suggest you read the comments left by other people on this thread and my responses to them in order for you to get a better grasp of the topic.

Thank you.
 
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
961
Points
760
Location
United Kingdom
1. Okay fair enough, but the point still stands, if you got a mostly negative reaction from a discussion why do you think a suggestion would be accepted? Staff aren't going to accept a suggestion if 90% of the active player base doesn't want it.

It isn't fair to determine a result for your suggestion based on rating score from a post of that age, as the dumb rating was at the time one of the most used reactions, which has since been removed. However, if you consider actual replies it seems clear that a lot of the playerbase either think what you're suggesting is outright a bad idea, or a very few somewhat agree but think you're acting about it in the wrong way

I personally think it would be interesting to see how many of the removed ratings you received, but sadly I doubt that information is available.

2. You can tell people to make a backstory, you can tell people they need to realistically theme their organisations and it will either just discourage people from making organisations in the first place, or they'll go through the effort to create those things and literally nothing else will change, having a random backstory and theme on the organisation page isn't going to make any difference to any actual roleplay on the server.
 
Last edited:
Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
@Samsterminator Thank you for the comments, I appreciate your investment.

The truth is that I don't know how big or how small of a chance this has to pass in any way shape or form... But because I believe it is the right thing to do, I'm doing all that I can to at least try. Perhaps what gives me hope that there might be a chance is the fact that changes have in the past been made that have not been popular with the majority but were ultimately for the greater good or at the very least were thought to have been for the greater good.

Also, I'm almost completely sure that at the time of the original discussion being posted, Dumb ratings have already been removed so all ratings should still be valid.
When it comes to the actual replies, it is true that there are more replies voiced against the idea rather than for it, but that is usually the case with everything. A negative impulse will prompt a negative reaction back much more likely and consistently than a positive impulse gets a positive reaction back. AKA, if something is agreeable with you, you will more than likely not feel the need to express your support for it, but if something agitates you, you will most likely feel the need to make that known and react to it.

When it comes to people who simply have no interest in RP. They shouldn't be a part of this server and this community in the first place and in accordance with 2.1, if they breach it, they should be removed. Harsh I know, but it is by the rules and by the principles of this server.

Ultimately, this is a radical, controversial, and rather confrontational thread... But I made it because I believe it to ultimately lead to a better state of the server and the community itself.
 
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
961
Points
760
Location
United Kingdom
Discouraging the idea of making organisations isn't going to at all increase the amount of roleplay on the server.
 
Messages
402
Reaction score
570
Points
595
Location
Prague, Czech republic, European Union,
@Samsterminator In truth, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from making an organization, I'm just trying to set some boundaries... But where within those boundaries you are is entirely up to you as long as it's realistic/believable.

Also what I'm asking is not a super-serious environment, I completely understand that it might very well sound like it, but a super serious-environment looks absolutely different from what I'm proposing here. An example of a super serious-environment would be CockWork servers like Begotten, Site 86, Respite, Hammerfall, etc.
What my proposal is would merely bring the volume and quality of RP onto a level at which this server could actually claim to be a Serious RP server without it being a lie and where 2.1 is not actually a rule neglected and singled out by the staff of past and present. You are however completely correct that initially, a drop in population would most likely happen, but more than likely the numbers would recover and the quality would only be on the rise or at the very least stay at an adequate level below which it couldn't drop if no other regulation changes were made.
 
Messages
38
Reaction score
33
Points
55
I agree somewhat. When I first started I was very excited about the prospect of some RP. I tried my best to RP, but as I have come to realize it's more like Ark Survival Evolved than RP. It's big orgs vs you. Survival of the fittest.

I do wish more RP was present, but forcing too much would not be healthy. There is a balance, and you are correct that it needs a little more enforcing.

There are some great RPers in this community though, you just have to dodge the combat/survival of the fittest players/orgs to find em.

Example: I can not count how many times mass shootings and robberies take place in public areas from non RP scenarios causing the people actually RPing to be shot, or detained/searched and cops removing their drugs/weapons even though they were just bystanders.

I used to hangout at Bazaar alot and spent quite a bit of time RPing and keeping my shop stocked even though it was losing money just to keep up my RP and meet people. But it always happens, a group of friends messing around nonRP then causing chaos just to get their pvp fix.
 
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
961
Points
760
Location
United Kingdom
@obidan66 I think that making organisations unnecessarily serious would discourage people from creating organisations altogether unless the rule was almost completely ignored. I know that going through all the effort to create a realistic-sounding background story just for org chat and a few other perks would discourage me from making one
 
Messages
258
Reaction score
699
Points
500
Location
That place.
I came back to perp from a long break after I saw on the forums that they were doing some RP events and the community slowly regaining its player base.

This encouraged me to stay for a bit and try to provide a good RP environment, to create an Org that has an actual structure, would act the way a real life organizatn would. It worked initially, people slowly joined, both serious RPers and not. I wanted this org to be an experiment to see how keen people will be and how would they react if exposed to a proper RP environment. The results were not bad, many reacted positively to RP when there was rp, and they went along. However, when there was no rp, their desire for RP vanished.

What I am trying to say is that people follow by example, they adapt and integrate with the surrounding environment. If they see people raid and shoot, they do that. If they see RP they do that as well. The problem in perp is that there isnt much RP, and no, dont tell me its getting revived, doing a /me once or opening a stall once doesnt make you an RPer. I've noticed some people getting misleading recommendations just because they are friends to the one who recommended the. Only select few truly rp in the server.

Yes, there is a problem in the staff team, as I've seen some of them endorse and support certain raid orgs only because they are friends with them or part of them, which can get frustrating. On the other hand, to be fair, there is also another portion of the staff team who are doing exemplary efforts to bring RP back, which I feel worked to some extent.

Finally, when you look at it all, you'd come to the conclusion, or at least I did, that perp isnt a serious rp server. Just a hardcore cops vs robbers server that needs to rebrand itself as such, there is no shame in that. From a server perspective, if thats the main reason people are playing, raiding and such, then why not exploit it, to keep things running Just remove that serious rp tag to it.

P.S: I wrote this late at night, cause I couldnt sleep, so it may lack refinement or even a proper structure. Ill fix it later.
 
Top